More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review | Organization Science

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 peer review goes pro

A what we're reading spotlight

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.

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.

Guest Post — Is Growth Always Good News? 2026 Article Submission Surges - The Scholarly Kitchen

ScholarOne saw a submission surge in the first quarter of 2026 — evidence that AI is increasing the strain on peer review's social contract with researchers.

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

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

AI, peer review and the human activity of science

When researchers cede their scientific judgement to machines, we lose something important.

How well does AI peer review work?

A new evaluation benchmark

How to build an AI scientist: first peer-reviewed paper spills the secrets

AI Scientist, an autonomous research tool, first released in 2024, has now undergone peer review, highlighting its strengths and limitations.

No. 014: Science's AI productivity paradox, Sakana clears peer review, AI proof search on open Erdős problems - The Hallway Track

The Hallway Track No. 014 - How AI is affecting the practice of science

Exploring AI’s growing role in scientific peer review

Stanford computer scientist James Zou discusses AI’s strengths at spotting errors and limitations in judging research significance.

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.

Improving the academic workflow: Introducing two AI agents for better figures and peer review

Jinsung Yoon, Research Scientist, and Tomas Pfister, Director, Google Cloud

Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without...

Artificial intelligence tools are accelerating manuscript production far faster than peer review capacity can expand. Applying the theory of constraints from manufacturing science, we formalize...