AI Used In Peer Review

[Hornbein]

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v18/194

Some are for it, others against it.

 

[.Scott]

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v18/194

Some are for it, others against it.

In my opinion:
It would be useful for a critique from a generative AI (or perhaps reports from a few Generative AI products) to be included in the review package - and available to the author (before the review) and the peers (during the review).
But only material generated by peers should constitute the actual review.
Of course, individual peer reviewers are free to use AI tools in whatever way they find useful.

In the field of software engineering, static code analysis tools have gotten remarkably good. Coverity and LDRA come to mind as examples. They are thorough to the extreme. But, they do identify "issues" that bear on the core purpose of the code - and which either cannot be "corrected" or should not be corrected. And these tools cannot directly address whether the code is actually meeting requirements - only whether it is self-consistent and meets broadly-accepted and/or industry-specific coding standards.

 

[Esim Can]

This will happen in future, that is for sure. It could be useful for the first selection process of the huge amount of papers. Soon, we will have not enough peer-reviewers to look at them. The final decision however will always be at the human side. At least as long as an AI is not a publisher of a science-journal itself.

 

[sbrothy]

I get all sorts of mail telling me that I'm the author of some "scientific" paper I have nothing to do with. I suspect it started when I began frequenting PF. Should I believe the spam I have an Erdős number of -3.