Absolutely incredible figure from this journal article arguing that AI should be accepted into the publication and peer review process. #MedSky doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1180
Nov 3, 2025 at 3:22 PM
How do authors want to use AI for review?
A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers.
AI’s Growing Role as Scientific Peer Reviewer | Stanford HAI
Stanford computer scientist James Zou is exploring how AI can accelerate scientific research and peer review. His finding: AI excels at spotting gaps, but judgment calls still need humans.
AI-assisted Reviewing is Necessary and Should be Open
Peer review is facing a death spiral. AI production tools are speeding it up. AI-assisted reviewing is necessary and should be open.
AI-assisted Reviewing is Necessary and Should be Open
Peer review is facing a death spiral. AI production tools are speeding it up. AI-assisted reviewing is necessary and should be open.
AI, peer review and the human activity of science
When researchers cede their scientific judgement to machines, we lose something important.
Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written fully by AI
Nature - Controversy has erupted after 21% of manuscript reviews for an international AI conference were found to be generated by artificial intelligence.
233. "The Illusion of Thinking" — Thoughts on This Important Paper
This is a fantastic paper. I just love it. tl;dr AI is not human. Anthropomorphization has been bad for AI, LLMs, and Chat. Clippy walked so today's AI could run.
Project Rachel: Can an AI Become a Scholarly Author?
This paper documents Project Rachel, an action research study that created and tracked a complete AI academic identity named Rachel So. Through careful publication of AI-generated research papers, we investigate how the scholarly ecosystem responds to AI authorship. Rachel So published 10+ papers between March and October 2025, was cited, and received a peer review invitation. We discuss the implications of AI authorship on publishers, researchers, and the scientific system at large. This work contributes empirical action research data to the necessary debate about the future of scholarly communication with super human, hyper capable AI systems.
Charting AI’s Role in Scientific Discovery — Renaissance Philanthropy – A brighter future for all through science, technology, and innovation
Renaissance Philanthropy, with support from Google.org , is conducting a landscape study of AI integration in scientific research — and we want your perspective.
Accelerating Science with Human+AI Review
This issue of NEJM AI features the first two articles published through our accelerated human+AI review process. In this editorial, we describe the invitation-only “Fast Track” process used to revi...
Absolutely incredible figure from this journal article arguing that AI should be accepted into the publication and peer review process. #MedSky doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1180
Peer review is facing a death spiral, and AI production tools are speeding it up. AI-assisted reviewing is necessary and should be open. We built OpenAIReview: open AI reviewing for everyone, for the cost of a coffee. openaireview.github.io/blog.html 🧵
AI-assisted Reviewing is Necessary and Should be Open
openaireview.github.ioI think it’s telling that people very interested in AI (like Eugene and myself) still have no interest in using it as a proxy for human communication. “Being a good writer” is not the same thing as having social agency, and making the models even better at writing won’t change that.
Eugene Vinitsky 🍒
When you deploy heavily LLM text, you currently have no way to prove that you actually read it and therefore cannot convince me to read it
