- \n
- AI-generated peer reviews are increasingly common, but they often lack depth and true scientific insight.<\/li>\n
- Responsible AI use can support, but not replace, expert human review, but clear guidelines and transparency are needed to maintain scientific integrity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/AdobeStock_1238243725.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
A recent article by James Zou in Nature<\/em><\/a> highlights the growing role of AI in peer review<\/a>, where up to 17% of peer-review comments in a sample of computer-science reviews were AI generated. While tools like ChatGPT can assist with reviewing research papers, they also present challenges that the academic community must address.<\/p>\nThe growing use of AI in peer review<\/strong><\/p>\n
Since the rise of ChatGPT in 2022, researchers have observed an increase in AI-generated peer reviews. These reviews are often characterised by a formal, verbose style and often do not refer specifically to the content of the submitted paper. Zou\u2019s study, which analysed 50,000 peer reviews, also found that AI-generated text was more common in last-minute reviews, suggesting that time constraints may drive its use.<\/p>\n
Risks and limitations of AI in peer review<\/strong><\/p>\n
While AI can streamline certain peer-review tasks<\/a>, it cannot replace expert human reviewers. Current large language models (LLMs) struggle with deep scientific reasoning and can often generate misguided assessments or \u2018hallucinations\u2019. AI-generated feedback can also lack technical knowledge and may overlook critical methodological flaws. Even when AI tools are used for low-risk applications, such as retrieving or summarising information, they can be unreliable, and all AI outputs should be verified by human reviewers. Platforms like OpenReview<\/a>, which facilitate interactive discussions between authors and reviewers, offer a promising model for balancing AI assistance with human oversight.<\/p>\n
Responsible AI use in peer review<\/strong><\/p>\n
Zou concludes that the adoption of AI in academic publishing is inevitable. Instead of banning AI, the scientific community must establish guidelines for its responsible use.<\/p>\n
\n
Instead of banning AI, the scientific community must establish guidelines for its responsible use.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
To maintain scientific integrity, journals and conferences should require reviewers to disclose AI usage and develop policies that limit AI\u2019s role to supportive, rather than decision-making, functions. More research is needed to define best practices, ensuring that AI benefits peer review without compromising its core principles.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Dan-Binks_new-byline.png?resize=1360%2C166&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n