Is it fair to the Authors? - Many AI-generated reviews throw numerous queries-many of them may not be appropriate or necessary for that article, putting undue pressure and wastage of time for the authors.
Should there be a uniform policy for the reviewers to declare the use of AI, similar to the authors?
AI should not replace human peer reviewers because critical appraisal requires expertise, judgment, and contextual understanding.
It may, however, assist the editorial office with preliminary checks; such as formatting, inconsistencies, or plagiarism; before forwarding manuscripts for expert human evaluation.
AI can, however, be a useful tool for the editorial office to screen manuscripts before they are sent to reviewers, helping streamline the process without compromising the quality of the review.
The integration of AI into peer review represents both a promising opportunity and a profound responsibility for the academic community. As these tools become more sophisticated, capable of scanning manuscripts for structural flaws, citation errors, or methodological inconsistencies, they offer a compelling way to streamline the review process and reduce human workload. Yet this very efficiency raises critical questions about the values we prioritize in scholarly evaluation.
While AI tools can enhance efficiency by rapidly identifying structural issues, citation inaccuracies, or methodological gaps, their current limitations, such as generating generic or contextually irrelevant feedback, risk undermining the nuanced, discipline-specific critique that defines meaningful peer review.
This tension between technological assistance and scholarly judgment raises fundamental questions about transparency and accountability, necessitating clear policies where reviewers disclose AI involvement, much like authors declare AI use in manuscript preparation. Crucially, we must preserve the irreplaceable human elements of peer review, the ability to recognize conceptual innovation in imperfect drafts, offer constructive interdisciplinary perspectives, and engage in the scholarly dialogue that advances knowledge. The academic community should adopt a balanced approach where AI supports but never supplants human expertise, ensuring tools are implemented with oversight mechanisms that prioritize both rigor and intellectual generosity. As this technology evolves, ongoing collaboration among researchers, editors, and developers will be essential to establish standards that harness AI's potential while safeguarding the integrity, fairness, and ultimately the humanistic values at the core of academic peer review.
I consider that, depending on the reviewer's need, they can use AI to different extents. Although, it shouldn't replace human expertise entirely because the expert can judge if the critique was right on point or not better than AI-generated LLMs, which are general unless you give them key instructions and valuable information.
Also, I feel that, depending on the pressure of volumes and tons of revisions, AI is helping a lot and, at the same time, diminishing some potential work that could be published or improved by human peer reviews. But it is part of nowadays' peer reviews, supported by AI, and it is evolving rapidly.
Personally, I prefer expert peer reviews because they understand the topic at hand and also give you impressive insights and feedback that can be incorporated into your research. Without their expertise, I consider we can't move the study to the next level.
Absolutely not! I want my human intellectual work to be judged by a human brain.
AI is what it is, artificial and not produced by human mental activity.
All AI is good for is:
a: to increase the profits of hyper-capitalist companies;
b: cause abusive over-consumption of electricity by their data centres;
All reviewers should be human beings!