It is now become increasingly difficult to find reviewers for submitted manuscripts. Due to strange policies of publishers, APCs paid by authors or subscriptions made by readers are solely utilised by publishers. Regardless of their invalyable contributions to the publishing world, reviewers are unpaid labourers. If corrections are made in time, I am afraid review process will get in trouble. May be the use of AI partially fill the gap. What is your thought then?
Deat Takele Taye Desta ,
The "fate" of a review process, particularly peer review in academic publishing, typically involves one of three outcomes: rejection, revision, or acceptance. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript, providing feedback to the editor, who then makes the final decision based on this feedback and their own assessment.
The scientific peer review process is one of the weakest links in the process of scientific knowledge production. While it is possible to review a paper in less than a day
Article Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’...
Regards,
Shafagat
Artificial Intelligence can play a valuable role in enhancing the publication process by assisting with technical checks, formatting tasks, and matching manuscripts to suitable reviewers. While these tools can help streamline the workflow, they should not be seen as a replacement for expert judgment and critical evaluation by a knowledgeable professional
A hybrid model that integrates the efficiency of artificial intelligence with the nuanced expertise of human reviewers can enhance the peer review process. Additionally, implementing improved recognition and compensation for reviewers will help make this system more sustainable.
You see reviewers are increasingly becoming reluctant to take review assignments, definitely this would be dangerous both for publishers and authors, then measures need to be taken on time
There is a growing sense of inequality in the rights of reviewers. Journals are taking more than they give from all parties, while reviewers receive nothing in return. In my opinion, this imbalance needs to be addressed.
Takele Taye Desta
When we talk about the issue of peer review and the unpaid work of reviewers, it is indeed a serious challenge for the modern academic publishing system. Publishers, who earn from APCs (Article Processing Charges) or subscriptions from readers, often do not compensate reviewers for their work, creating an unsustainable system. Reviewers, who make a significant contribution to the quality of scientific and academic literature, remain unpaid, and their motivation to work diminishes, which can negatively impact the quality of reviews and the overall process.
Additionally, the lack of resources and the growing number of manuscripts to be reviewed can lead to extended review timelines, which could jeopardize the efficiency of the entire system. If corrections on manuscripts are not made on time, it could lead to delays or even problems in the publication process.
Artificial intelligence (AI) could partially address this problem, but with certain limitations. AI could accelerate the process by helping to analyze texts for basic errors, such as grammatical or stylistic mistakes, as well as identifying plagiarism or repetition of ideas. However, it is difficult to expect AI to replace human reviewers when it comes to in-depth evaluation of research quality, originality of ideas, methodological rigor, and interpretation of results. In this sense, AI could be a useful tool to assist reviewers, but not a complete replacement.
Considering the current challenges, the ideal solution would be to find ways to better compensate reviewers and enable reviews to be faster and more efficient with the help of technology, rather than solely relying on unpaid human labor.
Dragon Ugrinov you made a point. The publishers are totally unfair and ruthlessly exploiting the scientific community by recruiting unpaid labourer in this 21st century. On the opposite, they are increasing the APC and Subscription charges over time putting in difficulties authors, which is annoying.
Takele Taye Desta
I completely agree. This practice is deeply problematic because not only is the scientific community being drained through unpaid labor, but it also creates a serious barrier for authors, especially those who lack the financial resources to pay high APC fees and subscriptions. It seems that publishers are increasingly seeking profit at the expense of those who are the actual foundation of science and research. Unfortunately, this creates a system where quality research always takes a backseat, and money becomes the main driving factor. To avoid such situations, serious reform in publishing is needed, with a focus on a fairer system that won't undermine the work of researchers.
Dear Dragan,
You see, if the publishers pay some honorarium to reviewers, reviewers are encouraged to produce high-quality report, which enhances the quality of the paper in question, and in the meantime both authors and the scientific community will be benefited, and the journal gains prominence.
How funny that some comments are from AI. Its even getting messy to find a good paper nowadays because researchers are using AI to generate what they don't even understand.
Dear Samson,
In the context of this discussion, we have not encouraged the use of AI to produce scientific reports; however, you can use it, for example, to correct grammatical errors.
- Badges
- Science topic