Send us a link
Analyzing evaluation dynamics across the editorial review and peer review stages, this study finds strong selective effects associated with higher institutional prestige, larger team size, and certain topics and countries.
Large language models are beginning to enter peer review. Yet this use creates a security problem: the manuscript being judged can also contain hidden instructions that shape the model's judgment.
Emerging challenges are exposing limits to a system that was not designed to withstand. Peer review is at an inflection point.
The role of AI in peer review should be acknowledged in order to ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
Generative AI is unsettling longstanding conventions of authorship, ownership and credit in academia and across cultural production. This has prompted responses that seek to reassert the role of the intelligent, creative human individual.
This article describes a course module that introduces MSc students at Utrecht University in the Netherlands to this part of the publication process.
If we were designing peer review from scratch for a world where powerful LLMs exist, what would we actually need humans for, and what could we comfortably automate?
Re-examining a 1997 paper claiming women academics need to work 2.4 times harder than their male counterparts, Ulf Sandström suggests what policymakers can learn from overreliance on single studies.
A randomized controlled study demonstrates that large language model-generated feedback can make reviews more informative while enhancing reviewer-author engagement. Preprint available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09737
A study of millions of life science papers revealed that manuscripts with women in key authorship roles spent longer between submission and acceptance.
The groundbreaking inquiry follows a complaint from a Polish company that the use of AI to evaluate its EIC bid was unfair.
Generative AI is already being used by some universities to assess the quality of their research - and it could be scaled up to help all higher education institutions save huge amounts of time and money.
A lottery-first approach followed by peer review is accompanied by increased female representation both at the submission stage and among funded projects as well as by lower estimated costs.
A new PNAS study uses openly available articles to map the scale of paper mill and peer review ring activity across scholarly publishing.
The lessons of decades of research into assessment and feedback haven't tracked across into the practice of peer review. Why not?
