Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Peer Review: Ethical Considerations, Current Practices, and Future Implications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.10081Keywords:
artificial intelligence (AI), scholarly peer review, publication ethics, research integrity, academic publishingAbstract
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disclosure where AI is used, human accountability, and strict confidentiality controls—often prohibiting uploading unpublished manuscripts into generative AI tools.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.
References
Abdelwahab, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence common good in research and academics. The Scholarship Without Borders Journal, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.57229/2834-2267.1058
American Journal Experts. (2018). Peer review: How we found 15 million hours of lost time. AJE. https://www.aje.com/en/arc/peer-review-process-15-million-hours-lost-time
Ateriya, N., Sonwani, N. S., Thakur, K. S., Kumar, A., & Verma, S. K. (2025). Exploring the ethical landscape of AI in academic writing. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-025-00453-1
Bakla, A. (2023). ChatGPT in academic writing and publishing: An overview of ethical issues. In G. Kartal (Ed.), Transforming the language teaching experience in the age of AI (pp. 89–101). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9893-4.ch005
Ben Saad, H., Dergaa, I., Ghouili, H., Ceylan, H. İ., Chamari, K., & Dhahbi, W. (2025). The assisted technology dilemma: A reflection on AI chatbots use and risks while reshaping the peer review process in scientific research. AI & Society, 40(7), 5649–5656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02299-6
Biswas, S., Dobaria, D., & Cohen, H. L. (2023). ChatGPT and the future of journal reviews: A feasibility study. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 96(3). https://doi.org/10.59249/SKDH9286
Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, authorship, ownership, academic ethics and integrity in a time of generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
Bozkurt, A., Crompton, H., Farrow, R., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Dron, J., West, R., Palalas, A. (Aga)., Bower, M., Xiao, J., Tlili, A., Henriksen, D., Pazurek, A., Huijser, H., Chiu, T. K. F., Jandrić, P., Jordan, K., Curry, J., Kimmons, R., Cukurova, M., Reeves, T., Hwang, G.-J., Shea, P., Lodge, J., Weller, M., Ng, D., & Asino, T. I. (2026). Redefining Educational Technology: A Critical Collaborative Inquiry. Open Praxis, 18(2), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.18.2.1117
Bozkurt, A., Crompton, H., & Fell Kurban, C. (2026). The devil is in the det[ai]ls: AI agents, ghost students, and the crisis of verified presence in an agentic AI world. Open Praxis, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.18.1.1145
Celik, S. U. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence into scientific writing: A narrative review for clinical and surgical researchers. The American Journal of Surgery, 250, 116657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116657
Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8
Clark, T. A. (2025). Ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly writing. Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing, 14(3), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/23320249251343881
Collu, M. G., Salviati, U., Confalonieri, R., Conti, M., & Apruzzese, G. (2025, August 28). Publish to perish: Prompt injection attacks on LLM-assisted peer review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.20863
COPE Council. (2025). COPE focus on artificial intelligence. https://publicationethics.org/cope-focus/cope-focus-artificial-intelligence
COPE Council. (2023). COPE position—Authorship and AI: English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms
Delanghe, J. R. (2024). The ethical aspects of AI in scientific publishing. Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry, 37(1), 177–180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12882074/
Doskaliuk, B., Zimba, O., Yessirkepov, M., Klishch, I., & Yatsyshyn, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence in peer review: Enhancing efficiency while preserving integrity. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 40(7). https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92
Dwivedi, Y. K., Malik, T., Hughes, L., & Albashrawi, M. A. (2024). Scholarly discourse on GenAI’s impact on academic publishing. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2024.2435386
Enoh, U. (2026). Artificial intelligence in academic publishing and research writing: A comprehensive review. Scribe Science: Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 9–13. https://scribescience.org/index.php/ss/article/view/6
Granjeiro, J. M., Cury, A. A. D. B., Cury, J. A., Bueno, M., Sousa-Neto, M. D., & Estrela, C. (2025). The future of scientific writing: AI tools, benefits, and ethical implications. Brazilian Dental Journal, 36, e25-6471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-644020256471
Gurnal, P., & Rana, L. (2025). Artificial intelligence and publishing ethics: A narrative review and SWOT analysis. Cureus, 17(5), e84098. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.84098
Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
Jiang, Y., & Ng, A. (2025). TechOverview. https://paperreview.ai/tech-overview
Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology, 307(2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171
Kocak, B., Onur, M. R., Park, S. H., Baltzer, P., & Dietzel, M. (2025). Ensuring peer review integrity in the era of large language models: A critical stocktaking of challenges, red flags, and recommendations. European Journal of Radiology Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrai.2025.100018
Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X. H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1570
Lee, J., Lee, J., & Yoo, J. J. (2025). The role of large language models in the peer-review process: Opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.4
Leung, T. I., de Azevedo Cardoso, T., Mavragani, A., & Eysenbach, G. (2023). Best practices for using AI tools as an author, peer reviewer, or editor. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e51584. https://doi.org/10.2196/51584
Liang, W., Izzo, Z., Zhang, Y., Lepp, H., Cao, H., Zhao, X., Chen, L., Ye, H., Liu, S., Huang, Z., McFarland, D. A., & Zou, J. Y. (2024). Monitoring AI-modified content at scale: A case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.07183
Lin, Z. (2025). Hidden prompts in manuscripts exploit AI-assisted peer review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.06185
Luo, Z., Yang, Z., Xu, Z., Yang, W., & Du, X. (2025). LLM4SR: A survey on large language models for scientific research. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.04306
Mann, S. P., Aboy, M., Seah, J. J., Lin, Z., Luo, X., Rodger, D., Zohny, H., Minssen, T., Savulescu, J., & Earp, B. D. (2025). AI and the future of academic peer review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.14189
Matsubara, S. (2026). AI use in peer review: Strict regulation may still be needed. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70885
Mollaki, V. (2024). AI tools in peer reviewing: Challenges and needs [Conference presentation]. Office Français de l’Intégrité Scientifique. https://www.ofis-france.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/09-Session2-OFIS_MOLLAKI_AI-Ethics-review_FINAL.pdf
Nature Portfolio. (2025). Editorial policies on artificial intelligence (AI). https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai
openRxiv. (2025, November 10). Enabling options for review: From training and transparency to author-centered AI tools. https://openrxiv.org/enabling-review-options/
Rohit, K., & Verma, M. (2024). Ethical AI shaping scholarly communication: Challenges and opportunities. 12th Convention PLANNER 2024. https://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/0ce09b9a-3be2-4b5f-a918-930b65e1d17b/content
Sabet, C. J., Bajaj, S. S., Stanford, F. C., & Celi, L. A. (2023). Equity in scientific publishing: Can artificial intelligence transform the peer review process? Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health, 1(4), 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpdig.2023.10.002
Sage. (n.d.). Artificial intelligence policy. https://www.sagepub.com/journals/publication-ethics-policies/artificial-intelligence-policy
Scifocus. (2025). Discover the 10 best peer review tools 2025. https://www.scifocus.ai/blogs/10-best-peer-review-tools-2025
Scuderi, G. R., Taunton, M. J., Browne, J. A., & Mont, M. A. (2026). The challenges with artificial intelligence in scientific writing. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 41(2), 299–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.12.001
Semrl, N., Feigl, S., Taumberger, N., Bracic, T., Fluhr, H., Blockeel, C., & Kollmann, M. (2023). AI language models in human reproduction research: Exploring ChatGPT’s potential to assist academic writing. Human Reproduction, 38(12), 2281–2288. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead207
Sun, Z. (2025). Large language models in peer review: Challenges and opportunities. Scientometrics, 130, 5503–5546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05440-w
Wang, G., Çukur, T., Kruger, U., Ferina, J., & Shan, H. (2026). Editorial AI reviewer (AIR) trial for responsible, secure, and efficient peer review. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 45(3), 867–869. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2026.3658770
Ye, R., Pang, X., Chai, J., Chen, J., Yin, Z., Xiang, Z., Dong, X., Shao, J., & Chen, S. (2024). Are we there yet? Revealing the risks of utilizing large language models in scholarly peer review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.01708
Zhou, H., & Soulière, M. (2025, August 25). From detection to disclosure: Key takeaways on AI ethics from COPE’s forum. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/08/25/from-detection-to-disclosure-key-takeaways-on-ai-ethics-from-copes-forum/
Zielinski, C., Winker, M. A., Aggarwal, R., Ferris, L. E., Heinemann, M., Lapeña, J. F., Jr., Pai, S. A., Ing, E., Citrome, L., Alam, M., Voight, M., & Habibzadeh, F. (2023). Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Colombia Medica, 54(3), e1015868. https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The copyright for all content published in IRRODL remains with the authors.
This copyright agreement and usage license ensure that the article is distributed as widely as possible and can be included in any scientific or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
