The advent of human-assisted peer review by AI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-024-01228-0

IF: 28.1

2024-06-13

Nature Biomedical Engineering

Abstract:The Internet didn't disrupt academic publishing. Audiovisual generative AI might do.

engineering, biomedical

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing

Brady Lund,Manika Lamba,Sang Hoo Oh

2024-06-10

Abstract:Generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies like ChatGPT, have significantly impacted academic writing and publishing through their ability to generate content at levels comparable to or surpassing human writers. Through a review of recent interdisciplinary literature, this paper examines ethical considerations surrounding the integration of AI into academia, focusing on the potential for this technology to be used for scholarly misconduct and necessary oversight when using it for writing, editing, and reviewing of scholarly papers. The findings highlight the need for collaborative approaches to AI usage among publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors to ensure that this technology is used ethically and productively.

Digital Libraries,Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society
AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind

Douglas Heaven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07245-9

IF: 64.8

2018-11-01

Nature

Abstract:A suite of automated tools is now available to assist with peer review but humans are still in the driver's seat.

multidisciplinary sciences
A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review

Laurie A. Schintler,Connie L. McNeely,James Witte

2023-09-03

Abstract:Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including large language models like ChatGPT, offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. On the one hand, AI can enhance efficiency by addressing issues like long publication delays. On the other hand, it brings ethical and social concerns that could compromise the integrity of the peer review process and outcomes. However, human peer review systems are also fraught with related problems, such as biases, abuses, and a lack of transparency, which already diminish credibility. While there is increasing attention to the use of AI in peer review, discussions revolve mainly around plagiarism and authorship in academic journal publishing, ignoring the broader epistemic, social, cultural, and societal epistemic in which peer review is positioned. The legitimacy of AI-driven peer review hinges on the alignment with the scientific ethos, encompassing moral and epistemic norms that define appropriate conduct in the scholarly community. In this regard, there is a "norm-counternorm continuum," where the acceptability of AI in peer review is shaped by institutional logics, ethical practices, and internal regulatory mechanisms. The discussion here emphasizes the need to critically assess the legitimacy of AI-driven peer review, addressing the benefits and downsides relative to the broader epistemic, social, ethical, and regulatory factors that sculpt its implementation and impact.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Scholarly Discourse on GenAI's Impact on Academic Publishing

Yogesh K. Dwivedi,Tegwen Malik,Laurie Hughes,Mousa Ahmed Albashrawi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2024.2435386

2024-12-12

Journal of Computer Information Systems

Abstract:This multidisciplinary and multi-perspective review, based on more than 50 editorials and studies published in the last two years, explores the transformative impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) on academic publishing. While GenAI has streamlined tasks such as summarizing literature and drafting manuscripts, it has also introduced significant ethical and practical challenges. Key concerns include authorship, where GenAI falls short of meeting intellectual or accountability criteria, as well as the increasing threat of plagiarism, originality issues, and the spread of misinformation. The review also highlights biases embedded in GenAI generated content and the implications for academic fairness and inclusivity. Additionally, it addresses transparency and accountability challenges in AI use within academic environments. Through a synthesis of these diverse perspectives and presentation of a model that posits an ecosystem that governs AI policy and publications, this review advocates for comprehensive guidelines and emphasizes the critical need for human oversight to ensure responsible AI use, balancing its potential efficiencies with the integrity and rigor of academic publishing.

computer science, information systems
Navigating the light and shadow of scientific publishing faced with machine learning and generative AI

Federico Palmisani,Daniel Segelcke,Jan Vollert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4736

2024-10-05

European Journal of Pain

Abstract:Background The public release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked a boom and public interest in generative artificial intelligence (AI) that has led to journals and journal families hastily releasing generative AI policies, ranging from asking authors for acknowledgement or declaration to the outright banning of use. Results Here, we briefly discuss the basics of machine learning, generative AI, and how it will affect scientific publishing. We focus especially on potential risks and benefits to the scientific community as a whole and journals specifically. Conclusion While the concerns of editors, for example about manufactured studies, are valid, some recently implemented or suggested policies will not be sustainable in the long run. The quality of generated text and code is quickly becoming so high that it will not only be impossible to detect the use of generative AI but would also mean taking a powerful tool away from researchers that can make their life easier every day. Significance We discuss the history and current state of AI and highlight its relevance for medical publishing and pain research. We provide guidance on how to act now to increase good scientific practice in the world of ChatGPT and call for a task force focusing on improving publishing pain research with use of generative AI.

neurosciences,clinical neurology,anesthesiology
The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing

Hilda Hadan,Derrick Wang,Reza Hadi Mogavi,Joseph Tu,Leah Zhang-Kennedy,Lennart E. Nacke

2024-06-27

Abstract:Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast. However, it is unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts. To investigate the impact of AI-augmented writing on peer reviews, we conducted a snippet-based online survey with 17 peer reviewers from top-tier HCI conferences. Our findings indicate that while AI-augmented writing improves readability, language diversity, and informativeness, it often lacks research details and reflective insights from authors. Reviewers consistently struggled to distinguish between human and AI-augmented writing but their judgements remained consistent. They noted the loss of a "human touch" and subjective expressions in AI-augmented writing. Based on our findings, we advocate for reviewer guidelines that promote impartial evaluations of submissions, regardless of any personal biases towards GenAI. The quality of the research itself should remain a priority in reviews, regardless of any preconceived notions about the tools used to create it. We emphasize that researchers must maintain their authorship and control over the writing process, even when using GenAI's assistance.

Computation and Language,Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction
AI-assisted peer review

Alessandro Checco,Lorenzo Bracciale,Pierpaolo Loreti,Stephen Pinfield,Giuseppe Bianchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8

2021-01-25

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Abstract:Abstract The scientific literature peer review workflow is under strain because of the constant growth of submission volume. One response to this is to make initial screening of submissions less time intensive. Reducing screening and review time would save millions of working hours and potentially boost academic productivity. Many platforms have already started to use automated screening tools, to prevent plagiarism and failure to respect format requirements. Some tools even attempt to flag the quality of a study or summarise its content, to reduce reviewers’ load. The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) create the potential for (semi) automated peer review systems, where potentially low-quality or controversial studies could be flagged, and reviewer-document matching could be performed in an automated manner. However, there are ethical concerns, which arise from such approaches, particularly associated with bias and the extent to which AI systems may replicate bias. Our main goal in this study is to discuss the potential, pitfalls, and uncertainties of the use of AI to approximate or assist human decisions in the quality assurance and peer-review process associated with research outputs. We design an AI tool and train it with 3300 papers from three conferences, together with their reviews evaluations. We then test the ability of the AI in predicting the review score of a new, unobserved manuscript, only using its textual content. We show that such techniques can reveal correlations between the decision process and other quality proxy measures, uncovering potential biases of the review process. Finally, we discuss the opportunities, but also the potential unintended consequences of these techniques in terms of algorithmic bias and ethical concerns.
The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing

Yves Gendron,Jane Andrew,Christine Cooper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102411

IF: 5.538

2021-12-01

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

Abstract:This essay aims to reflect on the potentially perilous implications of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. Our main point is that the colonization of academia by artificial intelligence technologies may erode, deskill and degrade core academic activities, where the role of key actors historically involved in the evaluation of research could become less and less tangible and significant. We are concerned particularly with the gradual removal of human involvement in journal editor and reviewer roles, as artificial intelligence and automated expert systems become increasingly influential across a range of tasks and judgments historically carried out and performed by people. Although these thoughts are exploratory, we believe it is imperative that researchers from all paradigmatic allegiances and geographies engage in initiatives that document, reflect, and debate the implications of artificial intelligence on the ways we evaluate research. The future of academic publishing as a meaningful human activity is at stake.

business, finance
Could AI change the scientific publishing market once and for all?

Wadim Strielkowski

2024-01-26

Abstract:Artificial-intelligence tools in research like ChatGPT are playing an increasingly transformative role in revolutionizing scientific publishing and re-shaping its economic background. They can help academics to tackle such issues as limited space in academic journals, accessibility of knowledge, delayed dissemination, or the exponential growth of academic output. Moreover, AI tools could potentially change scientific communication and academic publishing market as we know them. They can help to promote Open Access (OA) in the form of preprints, dethrone the entrenched journals and publishers, as well as introduce novel approaches to the assessment of research output. It is also imperative that they should do just that, once and for all.

Theoretical Economics,Digital Libraries
Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Gregory E Kaebnick,David Christopher Magnus,Audiey Kao,Mohammad Hosseini,David Resnik,Veljko Dubljević,Christy Rentmeester,Bert Gordijn,Mark J Cherry,Karen J Maschke,John McMillan,Lisa M Rasmussen,Laura Haupt,Udo Schüklenk,Ruth Chadwick,Debora Diniz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500182

Abstract:Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.
A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring

Milton Pividori,Casey S Greene

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae139

2024-09-01

Abstract:Objective: Investigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts. Materials and methods: For this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript. Results: Our results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text. Conclusions: Given the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing.
The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?

Thiago F. A. França,José Maria Monserrat

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.202413654

2024-10-07

Journal of General Physiology (JGP)

Abstract:Scholarly publishing has been shaped by the pressure of a liquid economy to become an exercise in branding more than a vehicle for the advancement of science. The current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to make matters worse. The new generation of large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in text generation and are already being used to write papers, grants, peer review reports, code for analyses, and even perform literature reviews. Although these models can be used in positive ways, the metrics and pressures of academia, along with our dysfunctional publishing system, stimulate their indiscriminate and uncritical use to speed up research outputs. Thus, LLMs are likely to amplify the worst incentives of academia, greatly increasing the volume of scientific literature while diluting its quality. At present, no effective solutions are evident to overcome this grim scenario, and nothing short of a cultural revolution within academia will be needed to realign the practice of science with its traditional ideal of a rigorous search for truth.
Reflections on Engaging Pragmatically with Generative AI to Augment Research and Education Practice

Peter Morris,Michael Connolly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v7i2.149

2023-12-07

Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning

Abstract:Generative AI tools enable researchers to generate multimedia content, including human-like visuals, voice and text. This novel paper’s purpose is to use generative AI to create a short paper, and to critically evaluate the process and implications of the material generated. Firstly, the capabilities of AI to generate multimedia content is summarised with an example of an AI generated professor. Both the opening section, and concluding reflections, are written without the use of AI. Perplexity.ai, an AI tool based on a large language model is used, through a series of prompts, to generate a short paper on AI in the animation industry. The generated paper emerged through a series of prompts written during a 90-minute session. The generated text is presented as is, modified only with minor deletions. In the concluding section, the impact of generative AI tools on researching are reflected upon with some positive and negative insights outlined.
Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process

Anna Carobene,Andrea Padoan,Federico Cabitza,Giuseppe Banfi,Mario Plebani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-1136

2023-11-30

Abstract:Background: In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns. Content: This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment. Summary: AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment. Outlook: As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing.
Human-in-the-Loop AI Reviewing: Feasibility, Opportunities, and Risks

Iddo Drori,Dov Te'eni,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00867

2024-01-01

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Abstract:The promise of AI for academic work is bewitching and easy to envisage, but the risks involved are often hard to detect and usually not readily exposed. In this opinion piece, we explore the feasibility, opportunities, and risks of using large language models (LLMs) for reviewing academic submissions, while keeping the human in the loop. We experiment with GPT-4 in the role of a reviewer to demonstrate the opportunities and the risks we experience and ways to mitigate them. The reviews are structured according to a conference review form with the dual purpose of evaluating submissions for editorial decisions and providing authors with constructive feedback according to predefined criteria, which include contribution, soundness, and presentation. We demonstrate feasibility by evaluating and comparing LLM reviews with human reviews, concluding that current AI-augmented reviewing is sufficiently accurate to alleviate the burden of reviewing but not completely and not for all cases. We then enumerate the opportunities of AI-augmented reviewing and present open questions. Next, we identify the risks of AI-augmented reviewing, highlighting bias, value misalignment, and misuse. We conclude with recommendations for managing these risks.

information science & library science,computer science, information systems
Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy?

Paul G. Schmidt,Amnon J. Meir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.06981

2023-10-08

Abstract:Ever since the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022, serious concerns have been raised about the impact and potentially dire consequences of the increasingly widespread use of generative AI tools for purposes of scientific writing and publishing. We document the ongoing discussion in the science community with a review of news articles, editorials, and position statements by major scientific publishers; discuss the potential pitfalls of using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT as aids in scholarly writing; furnish evidence for the proposition that AI-induced contamination of the scientific literature is not only a threat, but already a reality; and call upon leaders in our field to develop policies and guidelines to stem the spread of such contamination. Closing on a positive note, we provide a brief overview of potentially useful capabilities and sensible applications of ChatGPT and similar AI tools for purposes of scholarly writing.

Computers and Society,General Mathematics,History and Overview
A Study on the Impact of Generative AI on Publishing Environment

Seung Hwan Lee,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21732/skps.2023.111.83

2023-06-30

Korean Publishing Science Society

Abstract:ChatGPT is popular all over the world and shows the potential to exert a great influence on society as a whole. The importance of ChatGPT is that it became a catalyst for the public to directly experience generative AI services. Generative AI is already being evaluated as having enough potential to bring about many changes in all areas of society. The publishing sector is no exception. Rather, publishing is more likely to be impacted by generative AI than other fields. This study was conducted to know and prepare for how generative AI will affect the future of publishing. Among the currently existing generative AI services, marketing work, image, and audio fields were analyzed as those that can directly affect the publishing process. Subsequently, as a result of analyzing how generative AI can change writing, which is the core of publishing, it was found that generative AI is already being actively used in a wide spectrum of planning, question-and-answer, collaboration, and mixed content writing. The development and proliferation of generative AI is bringing new opportunities and challenges to publishing.
The Poetry of Prompts: The Collaborative Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Creation of Poetry and the Anxiety of Machine Influence

James Hutson,Ana Schnellmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34257/gjcstdvol23is1pg1

2023-04-10

Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology

Abstract:2022 has been heralded as the year of generative artificial intelligence (AI). Generative AI like ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion, along with a host of others, launched late in the year and immediately disrupted the status quo of the literary and art worlds, leading to outcries to ban “AI Art” and spawning an entirely new market of NFTs. Fears over the “death of the artist” and the “death of college composition,” however, are unfounded when considering the historical adoption of emerging technologies by creatives and the reconsideration of authorship that began with post structuralism and the Foucauldian Death of the Author in 1967. Contemporary scholarship has faced challenges in reconciling the function of the human author in conjunction with artificial intelligence (AI) due to the progressive sophistication and self-sufficiency of generative code. Nonetheless, it is erroneous to establish the threshold for authorship based on the development or advancement of AI or robotics, as it falls within the realm of ontology. Instead, assertions of AI authorship stem from a romanticized perception of both authorship and AI during a period in which neither holds significance.
Norms for Academic Writing in the Era of Advanced Artificial Intelligence

Simon Friederich,Jonathan Symons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00079-7

2023-11-03

Digital Society

Abstract:If and when artificial intelligence systems become superhuman in more aspects of analytic reasoning, this will inevitably have a strong impact on the social organisation of science, including academic writing, reviewing, and publishing. We consider how norms of academic publishing should be adjusted as this happens. To do so, we propose four intuitively plausible desiderata that norms of academic publishing should fulfil in the age of increasingly advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and argue that there are no "quick fixes" to current norms that fulfil these desiderata. To indicate the scale of change needed to prepare academic publishing for the era of increasingly advanced AI, we tentatively sketch a more promising novel system of norms. Our proposal centres around the idea that AI systems should "sign off'' on statements that outline the human and AI contributions to academic research. We discuss possible challenges for this proposal and highlight the type of technological and regulatory infrastructure that would be needed to enable it.

The advent of human-assisted peer review by AI

The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing

AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind

A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review

Scholarly Discourse on GenAI's Impact on Academic Publishing

Navigating the light and shadow of scientific publishing faced with machine learning and generative AI

The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing

AI-assisted peer review

The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing

Could AI change the scientific publishing market once and for all?

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring

The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?

Reflections on Engaging Pragmatically with Generative AI to Augment Research and Education Practice

Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process

Human-in-the-Loop AI Reviewing: Feasibility, Opportunities, and Risks

Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy?

A Study on the Impact of Generative AI on Publishing Environment

The Poetry of Prompts: The Collaborative Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Creation of Poetry and the Anxiety of Machine Influence

Norms for Academic Writing in the Era of Advanced Artificial Intelligence