How might AI-assisted peer review tools reshape scientific publishing, and what safeguards should be implemented to maintain review quality while addressing the increasing volume of submissions?
The peer-reviewing process is being faced with ever-growing challenges as submission rates are still rising exponentially in all areas. Journal editors are faced with the challenge of getting capable reviewers who are ready to volunteer their time, with a result being delays in reviewing, reviewer exhaustion, and worse, compromised quality. Meanwhile, AI technologies are accelerating their ability to review scientific manuscripts for methodology, statistical fitting, plagiarism screenings, and even conceptual novelty detection.
Charles
I would not encourage giving money for a review. However, NO scientist should be allowed to publish a paper without making several COMPETENT reviews (say three/ submissions). As editor, I experienced that big scientists are rarely available for a review, if at all; some penalty should be included in the scientometric evaluation for that.