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?

Hello Esteemed SciPinion Committee Members,
Whenever we are peer-reviewing, we must look for these important factors:

Does the manuscript’s content fall within the scope of the journal?

Is there any Key Word that is not included in the manuscript title?

Do authors’ affiliations correspond to the content of the manuscript?

Does the Abstract contain the contents of each part of the manuscript (IMRaD)?

Are the Key Words complete?

Is the content of the Introduction adequate?

Is the content of the Materials and Methods complete?

Is the description of the experiments clear and complete?

Are the experimental data presented in the manuscript’s biostatistics content reliable?

Are the experimental data of the Results true and reliable?

Are the quality and resolution of the images up to standard?

Do the selection and design of the figures and tables follow the principles of necessity and clarity?

Is there any duplication between various parts of the manuscript and between the main text and the content presented in the figures and tables?

Are the figures and tables numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear in the manuscript?

Is the content of the Discussion reasonable?

Is the Conclusion reasonable?

Are all references necessary and reasonable?

Do authors omit important references?

Are all references related to the topic of the manuscript?

Do authors only cite their own earlier publications?

Is the manuscript’s text correct, concise, and clear?

Will the manuscript’s content be of interest to readers?

Are additional experiments needed for the study?

Does the research scope comply with ethics?

And the additional comments on how to improve a scientific manuscript any further. I had reviewed over 1000 manuscripts but never used any AI assistance. Unsupervised intelligence can be shallow most of the times. So, in my opinion AI should be used for the correction of grammatical corrections only and many top Publishing Houses, rightly don't accept AI based peer-review.

Thanks,
Dr. Arvind Kumar MORYA

Hello Esteemed SciPinion Committee Members,
Whenever we are peer-reviewing, we must look for these important factors:

Does the manuscript’s content fall within the scope of the journal?

Is there any Key Word that is not included in the manuscript title?

Do authors’ affiliations correspond to the content of the manuscript?

Does the Abstract contain the contents of each part of the manuscript (IMRaD)?

Are the Key Words complete?

Is the content of the Introduction adequate?

Is the content of the Materials and Methods complete?

Is the description of the experiments clear and complete?

Are the experimental data presented in the manuscript’s biostatistics content reliable?

Are the experimental data of the Results true and reliable?

Are the quality and resolution of the images up to standard?

Do the selection and design of the figures and tables follow the principles of necessity and clarity?

Is there any duplication between various parts of the manuscript and between the main text and the content presented in the figures and tables?

Are the figures and tables numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear in the manuscript?

Is the content of the Discussion reasonable?

Is the Conclusion reasonable?

Are all references necessary and reasonable?

Do authors omit important references?

Are all references related to the topic of the manuscript?

Do authors only cite their own earlier publications?

Is the manuscript’s text correct, concise, and clear?

Will the manuscript’s content be of interest to readers?

Are additional experiments needed for the study?

Does the research scope comply with ethics?

And the additional comments on how to improve a scientific manuscript any further. I had reviewed over 1000 manuscripts but never used any AI assistance. Unsupervised intelligence can be shallow most of the times. So, in my opinion AI should be used for the correction of grammatical corrections only and many top Publishing Houses, rightly don't accept AI based peer-review.

Thanks,
Dr. Arvind Kumar MORYA

AI may help finding relevant information. However, the results and the methodology must be peer-reviewed by humans

Authors are already using AI to improve their papers (which is a good thing!). So, just like other fields, we should use AI to improve science, science communication and the process of going from submission to publication.

As AI gets better, I think journals should "pre-review" papers with AI to assist reviewers. The pre-review can:

These pre-reviews can also be part of the editorial assessment. I think with proper prompt engineering and fine-tuning, there is no good reason not to facilitate peer-review with AI. 

Of course, these need to be "air-gapped" or otherwise secured so submitted papers do not become part of training data. 

I find that peer review is a highly stochastic process. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not. Public post-publication review (i.e. like pubpeer) is the future. 

At present all serious publishers (Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, MDPI, etc.) do not allow to submit the manuscript to be reviewed to AI. AI may produce very good answers mixed with shocking (badly wrong) ones. The latter can be filtered out by good reviewers, but dubious statements are impossible to detect. Language corrections are OK, but the different AI platforms provide different, partly contradictory, responses; hence, they are not scientific. The usage of AI would be helpful to detect plagiarism, but the success rate is not sufficient AND the newest AI versions can provide papers in your own styles, i.e. the development of AI will limit the detection of plagiarism.
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.

very good