The academic peer review process has long stood as the bedrock of scholarly validation, functioning as both a filter and a forum for the dissemination of credible research. Yet, the peer review system is increasingly criticized for being slow, opaque, biased, and inconsistent. As the volume of scholarly output grows exponentially, so too does the strain on an already overburdened system (Bohannon, 2016). In this context, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) presents an opportunity not just for streamlining the process, but for reimagining how knowledge is evaluated and endorsed. Rather than viewing AI as a threat to scholarly rigor, it is more constructive to see it as a transformative companion—an intelligent co-reviewer that can bolster the integrity, efficiency, and accessibility of academic publishing.
One of the most immediate and practical applications of AI in peer review is in the initial triage of manuscript submissions. Journals receive hundreds, sometimes thousands, of submissions annually, many of which are either out of scope, improperly formatted, or fail basic ethical and quality benchmarks. AI-powered tools can rapidly perform this first layer of screening. Systems like iThenticate identify potential plagiarism, while platforms such as Penelope.ai flag formatting inconsistencies, missing ethics statements, and image duplications (Horbach & Halffman, 2018). This automated gatekeeping frees up human editors and reviewers to focus on submissions that are more likely to merit deep scholarly engagement. It also reduces the possibility of bias at the earliest stage of review by relying on transparent, rule-based filters.
Beyond administrative triage, AI is now supporting the linguistic and stylistic refinement of submissions. A growing number of journals are recommending or requiring the use of AI-enhanced language tools like Writefull, Grammarly, or ChatGPT to improve clarity, coherence, and grammatical precision. This is particularly valuable for non-native English speakers whose research may otherwise be unfairly judged based on language proficiency rather than the merit of their ideas (Montgomery, 2020). These tools are not substitutes for professional copyediting or scholarly review, but they reduce the cognitive load on reviewers who would otherwise spend time deciphering poorly constructed sentences or ambiguous claims. In doing so, AI promotes a more equitable evaluation environment while streamlining the editorial process.
Perhaps the most groundbreaking role of AI in peer review is its potential to act as a technical auditor. Recent developments in AI models trained specifically on scientific literature have made it possible to run automated checks on the soundness of statistical methods, detect logical inconsistencies in the methodology, and even identify omitted but relevant literature. Tools like StatReviewer and Ripeta can assess whether the research meets basic reproducibility standards or whether key variables have been adequately disclosed (Powell, 2022). AI can also flag potential errors in data reporting, misuse of p-values, or methodological red flags that might escape the eye of a single overworked reviewer. While these tools are not infallible, they offer an invaluable second layer of scrutiny that complements human expertise and increases the consistency of review outcomes.
Artificial intelligence also plays a crucial role in enhancing fairness and accountability in the peer review ecosystem. Reviewer bias—whether based on gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, or subject matter—remains a persistent problem in academic publishing (Lee et al., 2013). AI systems can analyze patterns in reviewer recommendations and decision outcomes across thousands of submissions to detect subtle forms of systemic bias. Such analyses can help journals reform their editorial policies, balance reviewer pools, and develop blind review protocols that protect the integrity of the process. Furthermore, AI-driven systems can ensure more equitable recognition of underrepresented voices in scholarship by suggesting citations that reflect diverse geographic and institutional perspectives, thereby challenging the citation biases that often reinforce established hierarchies (Szell et al., 2018).
Reviewer selection, a task that traditionally falls on editors’ shoulders, is another process ripe for AI enhancement. Matching manuscripts with suitable experts is a complex and often subjective task. AI can assist by cross-referencing the content of a submission with large datasets of reviewer profiles, including their publication history, expertise areas, and even prior review behavior (Teixeira da Silva & Dobránszki, 2015). This automated matching not only accelerates the assignment process but improves the quality of reviews by ensuring a closer fit between reviewer expertise and manuscript content. It also opens up the reviewer pool to emerging scholars who might be overlooked in traditional networks but are algorithmically recognized for their relevant knowledge.
AI’s utility doesn’t end at the point of publication. In a world increasingly reliant on post-publication metrics, artificial intelligence enables real-time monitoring of article performance and engagement. By analyzing citation trends, altmetrics, and discussions across academic and public platforms, AI provides a dynamic feedback loop that informs editors, authors, and readers about a paper’s impact (Priem et al., 2012). This capacity also enhances post-publication peer review by surfacing critiques, corrections, or endorsements from the broader scholarly community. Some platforms even use AI to generate impact summaries or identify emerging controversies in real time, thereby expanding the temporal and spatial boundaries of what counts as “peer review.”
Despite these advantages, it is essential to acknowledge that AI is not a panacea. The use of AI in scholarly review raises critical ethical and practical concerns. One of the most pressing is the risk of reinforcing existing biases if AI systems are trained on flawed or homogenous datasets. For instance, if an AI reviewer is trained primarily on English-language journals or historically male-dominated fields, it may unintentionally privilege certain epistemologies over others (Bender et al., 2021). Transparency in AI training data, clear governance structures, and routine audits are necessary to ensure that AI interventions do not replicate or amplify the very inequities they are intended to mitigate.
Another significant limitation lies in AI’s inability to assess novelty, creativity, or theoretical innovation—the very qualities that often define transformative research. AI can evaluate consistency, accuracy, and completeness, but it cannot yet understand context in the way a human scholar can. It may misclassify boundary-pushing work as deviant or problematic simply because it deviates from established norms (Fraser et al., 2020). Therefore, while AI is a powerful assistant, it must never become the sole arbiter of intellectual merit.
There is also the question of accountability. When AI flags a manuscript as problematic, who is responsible for verifying and acting on that assessment? And what recourse do authors have if an AI-based system misjudges their work? As AI tools become more integrated into publishing workflows, clear lines of responsibility must be drawn. Authors, reviewers, editors, and technologists must collaborate to establish ethical guidelines, dispute resolution mechanisms, and transparency standards for AI-generated evaluations (Hosseini et al., 2023).
Nonetheless, the momentum is undeniable. The increasing adoption of AI in academic publishing is not a trend but a paradigm shift. Leading journals and publishing platforms are already experimenting with semi-automated peer review systems, predictive analytics for citation potential, and intelligent editorial dashboards. As these tools mature, they will not replace the peer review process, but reconfigure it into a more responsive, data-informed, and ethically robust system. The challenge now is to guide this evolution with foresight, integrity, and inclusivity.
In the end, peer review is a social process as much as it is a technical one. AI can provide the infrastructure for faster, fairer, and more accurate evaluation, but the judgment, creativity, and ethical stewardship must remain in human hands. The future of peer review is not artificial, but augmented. In this future, AI doesn’t gatekeep knowledge—it helps build a wider, more equitable gate.
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bohannon, J. (2016). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Fraser, N., Maynard, A. D., & Whelan, J. (2020). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biology, 19(4), e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
Hosseini, M., Horbach, S., & van den Besselaar, P. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review: Potentials, Pitfalls, and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 54(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0015
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
Montgomery, S. L. (2020). The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science. University of Chicago Press.
Powell, K. (2022). Does AI peer review? The push to automate the academic publishing process. Nature, 606(7913), 211–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01530-3
Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745.
Szell, M., Ma, Y., & Sinatra, R. (2018). Inequality and unfairness in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(51), 12601–12606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812068115
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909