SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
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
7 references·16 citing·41 second hop
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 (2024)Death of a reviewer or death of peer revi…From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing (2023)From human writing to artific…Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts (2023)Chatbots, generative AI, and …AI-assisted peer review (2021)AI-assisted peer reviewA multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Accountability in algorithmic decision making (2016)Accountability in algorithmic…Peer review: still king in the digital age (2014)Peer review: still king in th…Peer review in health sciences (2002)Peer review in health sciencesThe assisted Technology dilemma: a reflection on AI chatbots use and risks while reshaping the peer review process in scientific research (2025)The assisted Technology dilem…Personal experience with AI-generated peer reviews: a case study (2025)Personal experience with AI-g…Peer Review in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Call for Developing Responsible Integration Guidelines (2025)Peer Review in the Artificial…Large language models in peer review: challenges and opportunities (2025)Large language models in peer…Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey (2025)Large language models for aut…How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review (2025)How Artificial Intelligence D…Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review: Insights from Journal Reviewers (2025)Exploring the Impact of Gener…Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis (2025)Ethical guidelines for the us…Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process: towards a hybrid approach (2025)Comparing human and AI expert…A Cross‐Disciplinary Analysis of AI Policies in Academic Peer Review (2025)A Cross‐Disciplinary Analysis…The review mills, not just (self-)plagiarism in review reports, but a step further (2024)The review mills, not just (s…Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers (2024)Key Guidelines for Responding…Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing (2024)Is AI my co-author? The ethic…Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality? (2024)Can ChatGPT evaluate research…Benefits and Challenges of Using AI for Peer Review: A Study on Researchers’ Perceptions (2024)Benefits and Challenges of Us…‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals? (2024)‘As of my last knowledge upda…Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact (2015)Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science (2018)Actionable Auditing (2019)Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019)Bias in peer review (2012)Big Data's Disparate Impact (2014)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process (2021)Artificial intelligence in academic writing: a paradigm-shifting technological advance (2023)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)Addressing bias in big data and AI for health care: A call for open science (2021)ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT for Automating Systematic Review Process: Methodology, Case Study, Limitations, and Future Directions (2023)Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say? (2023)The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments (2024)Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2015)Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers (2023)Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review (2023)Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Including Large Language Models Such as ChatGPT, in Scientific Publications: Policies of KJR and Prominent Authorities (2023)The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (2015)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. (2023)Evaluating research quality with Large Language Models: An analysis of ChatGPT’s effectiveness with different settings and inputs (2024)Evaluating the predictive capacity of ChatGPT for academic peer review outcomes across multiple platforms (2025)Using AI to write scholarly publications (2023)Talking about Large Language Models (2024)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies (2015)Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period (2018)Generative AI and the future of writing for publication: insights from applied linguistics journal editors (2025)The Paradox of Ethical AI-Assisted Research (2025)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Women Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review to Outline the Boundaries of Scientific Literature (2020)Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument (2011)COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies) (2014)Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing795 cited
  • 2016Accountability in algorithmic decision making757 cited
  • 2002Peer review in health sciences349 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
  • 2021AI-assisted peer review284 cited
  • 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age243 cited
  • 2023Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts130 cited

Cited by

  • 2024Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?68 cited
  • 2024Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing43 cited
  • 2025Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review: Insights from Journal Reviewers42 cited
  • 2024The review mills, not just (self-)plagiarism in review reports, but a step further37 cited
  • 2025Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey34 cited
  • 2025Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process: towards a hybrid approach33 cited
  • 2024‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals?29 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2025The assisted Technology dilemma: a reflection on AI chatbots use and risks while reshaping the peer review process in scientific research28 cited
  • 2025Peer Review in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Call for Developing Responsible Integration Guidelines20 cited
  • 2025How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review18 cited
  • 2025Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis18 cited
  • 2025A Cross‐Disciplinary Analysis of AI Policies in Academic Peer Review17 cited
  • 2024Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers16 cited
  • 2025Personal experience with AI-generated peer reviews: a case study15 cited
  • 2025Large language models in peer review: challenges and opportunities15 cited
  • 2024Benefits and Challenges of Using AI for Peer Review: A Study on Researchers’ Perceptions15 cited