Skip to content
Review Open access

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Lifecycle of Scientific Manuscripts: Authoring, Reviewing, and Editorial Selection

Jul 2026 · Qeios · 0 citations · 25 references

TL;DR

A framework for sustainable, human-centered integration of AI is proposed in which AI is restricted to technical verification and efficiency, while judgments on scientific merit, ethics, and paradigm-shifting research are reserved for appropriately valued human experts.

Abstract

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) into scientific publishing is accelerating, driven by systemic crises in peer review and academic economic pressures. This manuscript, presented as a critical commentary and policy analysis, provides a three-part examination: a) AI as a co-authoring tool, balancing its democratizing potential against risks like citation fabrication, b) AI's proficiency in technical review versus its inability to assess novelty, and c) the risk of amplified bias in AI-driven editorial decisions. In the context of peer review, LLMs are being increasingly used for tasks such as preliminary technical verification and language editing. However, their adoption raises critical concerns. Recent evidence confirms that citation hallucination remains a persistent threat, although emerging mitigation strategies such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and verified knowledge integration are being developed to address this challenge. Furthermore, 2025 surveys indicate that over 50% of researchers utilize AI during peer review, often violating existing policies. This shift occurs within an exploitative model that relies on unpaid labor while charging substantial Article Processing Charges (APCs). To address these challenges, this paper proposes a framework for sustainable, human-centered integration of AI. A hybrid model is proposed in which AI is restricted to technical verification and efficiency, while judgments on scientific merit, ethics, and paradigm-shifting research are reserved for appropriately valued human experts. The economic feasibility of compensating reviewers, the allocation of verification responsibilities within editorial workflows, and the need for clear legal accountability frameworks are examined. Maintaining scientific credibility requires both the ethical integration of AI and a fundamental reform of the economic structures governing research communication.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review

The Role of Arti�cial Intelligence in the Lifecycle of Scienti�c Manuscripts: Authoring, Reviewing, and Editorial Selection

A framework for sustainable, human-centered integration of AI is proposed in which AI is restricted to technical veri�cation and ef�ciency, while judgments on scienti�c merit, ethics, and paradigm-shifting research are reserved for appropriately valued human experts.

J. Domingo · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Publishing: At the Crossroads of Innovation, Scientific Integrity, and Editorial Governance

Artificial intelligence is reshaping medical publishing through three complementary technologies: generative artificial intelligence, AI-powered evidence-synthesis platforms, and increasingly autonomous AI assistants.

Kamran Khalid · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Peer Review: Ethical Considerations, Current Practices, and Future Implications

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.

Aras Bozkurt · 0 citations
Review Jul 2026

Quantifying Artificial Intelligence Contribution in Academic Writing: Development of the Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions Instrument.

Authors in any field should self-report a TRACES score when submitting their manuscript, and Journals may benefit from requiring authors to include a TRACES score when submitting a manuscript for peer review.

M. B. Vyas, Lori M Rhudy, Suzanne Weckman et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Artificial Intelligence in eWOM: Roles, Mechanisms, and an Integrative Framework

An AI-enabled lifecycle of Creation, Transformation, Transmission, Evaluation, Evaluation, and Governance is proposed and an AI-eWOM fit perspective is developed and a TCCM-organized research agenda identifies priorities for future research.

A. Joyal · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.