Aug 2026· International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning· 0 citations
TL;DR
It is concluded that AI should serve as an augmentative rather than substitutive technology in peer review, with robust governance frameworks, transparent disclosure mechanisms, and continuous evaluation of equity implications essential for responsible implementation.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scholarly peer review represents a fundamental transformation of academic publishing’s quality control mechanisms. This report critically examined the ethical considerations, institutional practices, and emerging technologies associated with AI-assisted peer review. Drawing on recent policy documents from major publishing organizations, empirical research on AI implementation, and critical scholarship on algorithmic bias, this analysis revealed significant tensions between efficiency gains and integrity preservation. While AI tools have demonstrated potential for addressing reviewer burnout and publication delays, their deployment raises critical concerns regarding confidentiality breaches, accountability gaps, algorithmic bias, and the erosion of expert judgment. Major organizations (e.g., International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and leading publishers such as Elsevier and Taylor & Francis have emphasized disclosure where AI is used, human accountability, and strict confidentiality controls—often prohibiting uploading unpublished manuscripts into generative AI tools. However, empirical evidence has suggested nontrivial, and potentially growing, undisclosed large language model (LLM)-assisted text in peer review in some conference contexts. This report concluded that AI should serve as an augmentative rather than substitutive technology in peer review, with robust governance frameworks, transparent disclosure mechanisms, and continuous evaluation of equity implications essential for responsible implementation.
The TITAN guidelines are reviewed as a practical framework for improving transparency and responsible reporting of AI use in medical research and scholarly publishing and can accommodate emerging AI technologies, including multimodal and agentic systems.
Arzoo Nazir, Shah Zeb· Electronic Journal of Medica...· 0 citations
It is argued that effective AI governance in scientific publishing cannot be achieved through static rules or journal-centric control alone, and requires a shift toward shared, adaptive oversight of the scientific publishing system.
R. Abulibdeh, J. Arslan, S. Ordóñez et al.· MIT Science Policy Review· 1 citation
The findings indicate that AI integration in research ethics oversight is shaped not only by technological feasibility but by institutional concerns regarding responsibility, legitimacy, and deliberative authority.
Daniel Wang, Marta Guix Arnau, Cristina Llop Julià et al.· Research Ethics· 0 citations
It is argued that medical publishing should move from a restrictive approach toward a framework of structured transparency that systematically documents, evaluates, and verifies AI use and is proposed a practical governance framework that includes a three-tiered AI disclosure system.
Jong-Min Kim· Journal of Korean medical sc...· 1 citation
It is concluded that originality, authorship, integrity, fairness, and transparency are interdependent concerns rather than separate issues, and that responsible AI use is best understood as a disciplined, disclosed collaboration with a non-author tool.
K. A. Badaru· Interdisciplinary Journal of...· 0 citations
A conceptual review examines the emerging typologies of unethical AI use in academic publishing, including AI-generated textual content with hallucinated citations, AI-assisted data fabrication, AI-generated or manipulated images and figures, AI-enabled peer-review manipulation, and failures to disclose AI involvement.
Sanmati Jinendran Jain· IP Indian Journal of Library...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.