Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21787503 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vasiliki Mollaki (0000-0002-8479-8704, International Hellenic University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 239-250 |
| Publication date | 2024-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-0161 • E-ISSN: 2047-6094 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/17470161231224552 |
| OpenAlex | W4390733549 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 15 |
Peer review facilitates quality control and integrity of scientific research. Although publishing policies have adapted to include the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in the preparation of manuscripts by authors, there is a lack of guidelines or policies on whether peer reviewers can use such tools. The present article highlights the lack of policies on the use of AI tools in the peer review process (PRP) and argues that we need to go beyond policies by creating transparent procedures that will enable journals to investigate allegations of non-compliance and take decisions that will protect the integrity of the peer review system. Reviewers found to violate relevant policies must be excluded from the process to safeguard the integrity of the peer review system
Academic integrity · Computer security · Engineering ethics · Internet privacy · Peer review · Political science · Publishing · Academic Publishing and Open Access · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Computer Science · Engineering · Ethics in Clinical Research · Law
Systematic analysis of generative AI tools integration in academic research and peer review
“When the Editor Detected AI — But the ‘AI’ Was Me”
Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process
Can large language models assess the quality of peer review? An empirical study
The review mills, not just (self-)plagiarism in review reports, but a step further
Large language models in peer review
Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review
Generational Divide in AI Adoption for Academic Writing
The assisted Technology dilemma
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |