The Peer Review Crisis Demands Radical Reform: Why Reviewers Should Become Paid Professional Referees

Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem

Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale. Exponential growth in manuscript submissions to premier ML venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR is outpacing the finite capacity of qualified reviewers, leading to concerns about review quality, consistency, and reviewer fatigue. This position paper argues that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority. We advocate for a comprehensive AI-augmented ecosystem, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) not as replacements for human judgment, but as sophisticated collaborators for authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs (ACs). We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making. Crucially, we contend that the development of such systems hinges on access to more granular, structured, and ethically-sourced peer review process data. We outline a research agenda, including illustrative experiments, to develop and validate these AI assistants, and discuss significant technical and ethical challenges. We call upon the ML community to proactively build this AI-assisted future, ensuring the continued integrity and scalability of scientific validation, while maintaining high standards of peer review.

Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review

Scholarly journals rely on peer review to identify the science most worthy of publication. Yet finding willing and qualified reviewers to evaluate manuscripts has become an increasingly challenging task, possibly even threatening the long-term viability of peer review as an institution. What can or should be done to salvage it? Here, we develop mathematical models to reveal the intricate interactions among incentives faced by authors, reviewers, and readers in their endeavors to identify the best science. Two facets are particularly salient. First, peer review partially reveals authors’ private sense of their work’s quality through their decisions of where to send their manuscripts. Second, journals’ reliance on traditionally unpaid and largely unrewarded review labor deprives them of a standard market mechanism—wages—to recruit additional reviewers when review labor is in short supply. We highlight a resulting feedback loop that threatens to overwhelm the peer review system: (1) an increase in submissions overtaxes the pool of suitable peer reviewers; (2) the accuracy of review drops because journals must either solicit assistance from less qualified reviewers or ask current reviewers to do more; (3) as review accuracy drops, submissions further increase as more authors try their luck at venues that might otherwise be a stretch. We illustrate how this cycle is propelled by the increasing emphasis on high-impact publications, the proliferation of journals, and competition among these journals for peer reviews. Finally, we suggest interventions that could slow or even reverse this cycle of peer-review meltdown.

A New Paradigm for Scientific Publishing, Peer Review, and Impact Assessment

Scientific publishing and peer review have evolved little in three centuries, while the demands placed on them have grown profoundly. The growing role of artificial intelligence has underscored deep, systemic shortcomings of an aging system that has largely evaded innovation, a system whose origins are appallingly closer to the invention of the printing press than to the internet. We can do better – much better. This article is intended as the beginning of a communal experiment: a living document that critically reviews the modern academic publishing and peer-review system and presents a concrete framework to address what bibliometrics experts¹ have characterized as "the pervasive misapplication of indicators to the evaluation of scientific performance". Building on the Leiden Manifesto, DORA, and a body of scholarship spanning many disciplines and decades, we present a community-governed, non-profit platform organized around three trust-weighted impact factors, for articles, authors, and reviewers, with full algorithmic transparency, an open development log, and structural decoupling of credibility scoring from content moderation and from monetization. We invite the community to discuss, critique, and help shape it.

Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration

Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication. The number of low-quality or fraudulent publications is rising to hundreds of thousands per year, which—if unchecked—will damage the scientific and economic progress of our societies. The result is editor and reviewer fatigue, irreproducible experiments, misguided experiments, disinformation and escalating costs that devour funding from taxpayers intended for research. It is high time to reevaluate current publishing models and outline a global plan to stop this unhealthy development. A conference was therefore organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to draft an action plan with specific recommendations, as follows. (i) Academia should resume control of publishing using non-profit publishing models (e.g. diamond open-access). (ii) Adjust incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity, in a reputation economy where the gaming of publication numbers and citation metrics distorts the perception of academic excellence. (iii) Implement mechanisms to prevent and detect fake publications and fraud which are independent of publishers. (iv) Draft and implement legislations, regulations and policies to increase publishing quality and integrity. This is a call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort.

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies enforceable? To answer this question, we assemble a dataset of peer reviews simulating multiple levels of human-AI collaboration, and evaluate five state-of-the-art detectors, including two commercial systems. Our analysis shows that all detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished reviews as AI-generated, thereby risking false accusations of academic misconduct. We further investigate whether peer-review-specific signals, including access to the paper manuscript and the constrained domain of scientific writing, can be leveraged to improve detection. While incorporating such signals yields measurable gains in some settings, we identify limitations in each approach and find that none meets the accuracy standards required for identifying AI use in peer reviews. Importantly, our results suggest that recent public estimates of AI use in peer reviews through the use of AI-text detectors should be interpreted with caution, as current detectors misclassify mixed reviews (collaborative human-AI outputs) as fully AI generated, potentially overstating the extent of policy violations.

Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science

The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g. scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g. by H-factor) and rating scales (e.g. by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and collaboration.

AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot

Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.

A Cross‐Disciplinary Analysis of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AI</span> Policies in Academic Peer Review

ABSTRACT Rapid advances of artificial intelligence (AI) have substantially impacted the field of academic publishing. This study examines AI integration in peer review by analysing policies from 439 high‐ and 363 middle‐impact factor (IF) journals across disciplines. Using grounded theory, we identify patterns in AI policy adoption. Results show 83% of high‐IF journals have AI guidelines, with varying stringency across disciplines. Meanwhile, only 75% of middle‐IF journals have AI guidelines. Science, technology, and medicine (STM) disciplines exhibit stricter regulations, while humanities and social sciences adopt more lenient approaches. Key ethical concerns focus on confidentiality risks, accountability gaps, and AI's inability to replicate critical human judgement. Publisher policies emphasise transparency, human oversight, and restricted AI usage for auxiliary tasks only, such as grammar checks or reviewer finding. Disciplinary differences highlight the need for tailored guidelines that balance efficiency gains with research integrity. This study proposes collaborative frameworks for responsible AI integration. It focuses on accountability, transparency, and interdisciplinary policy development to address peer review challenges. , Key Points Application of AI tools in peer review has received increasing attention. Among the 439 high‐IF journals investigated, 83% provided AI policies for peer review, while 75% of middle‐IF journals did so. AI policies focus on confidentiality risks, accountability gaps, and capacity deficiencies of AI. AI policies for peer review vary according to the affiliated publishers and disciplines. Tailored AI guidelines need to be established according to the discipline.

Faster science, penalties in evaluation, and concerns on quality and impact: Researchers’ use and perceptions of preprints

The preprint ecosystem has expanded rapidly over the past decade, fundamentally altering science communication. Yet, the scholarly community’s attitudes toward this shift remain underexplored. Through a large-scale survey of US and Canadian biomedical scholars, we provide a comprehensive analysis of preprint utilization, perceived impact, and integration into academic credit systems. We find robust engagement across reading, citing, and submitting preprints; however, this activity is driven primarily by a desire for rapid dissemination rather than a foundational commitment to open science. Furthermore, while preprints are valued as networking assets, perceived career penalties during formal academic evaluations stifle broader cultural adoption. Crucially, to navigate the absence of formal peer review, scholars report a heavy reliance on author reputation as a primary heuristic to evaluate a preprint’s credibility and guide their reading and citation decisions. Notably, despite acknowledging preprints’ role in accelerating knowledge sharing, scholars express significant concerns regarding fraud and misinformation, particularly amid declining public trust in science and emerging threats to scientific integrity from artificial intelligence. To resolve these tensions, the preprint ecosystem must evolve beyond prioritizing speed to foster genuine academic dialogue. Simultaneously, evaluation frameworks must adapt to the realities of preprinting, and innovative quality-control mechanisms are urgently needed to balance rapid dissemination with rigorous scientific integrity.

Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?

As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.

(PDF) Peer Reviewers Should be Allowed to Upload Manuscripts to AI

PDF | Publishers bar peer reviewers-but not authors or editors-from feeding manuscripts to AI. Cited confidentiality concerns don't survive scrutiny.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool

Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.

Guest Post — Now is the Time for AI in Peer Review, and Publishing Policies Need to Recognize This - The Scholarly Kitchen

Today's post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.

You can just review things: A digital ethnography of informal peer review

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and...

You can just review things: A digital ethnography of informal peer review

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and publisher-mediated process is now being supplemented by critiques on open, distributed platforms. We call this practice, a blend of three open peer review variants, informal peer review as it is accessible to outsiders, unmediated by publishers, and conducted across public platforms. Informal peer reviewers range from occasional error detectors to experienced sleuths who identify plagiarism, fraud, errors, conflicts of interest, and conceptual flaws. They may interpret methods, clarify jargon, assess value, and connect to related work. Here, we asked four questions: (1) Who are informal peer reviewers? (2) Where do they work? (3) How do they evaluate research? and (4) What are their impacts? To answer these questions, we conducted a cross-platform digital ethnography with participant observation. We traced discourse across communities over four months and revisited cases after nine and twelve months. From 15 communities, we selected 12 case mentions (10 unique cases) and 8 meta-commentaries from 26 reviewers. Using open and axial coding, we generated 1,080 codes and four themes: reviewers are a motley crew, they self-organize across subpar digital spaces, use deep, uncommon strategies, and they face resistance from authors, publishers, and editors. Informal peer review, we concluded, is a fragile, minimally governed patchwork of people, platforms, and practices, as well as an emerging evidence infrastructure that can be scaled up. We advise advocates and tool-builders to evolve informal review tools, communities, training, and governance by connecting to scholars' values, reducing participation friction, and rewarding attempts to extend the scholarly dialogue.

A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review

The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered.