Evaluating the potential risks of employing large language models in peer review

Abstract

Abstract Objective This study aims to systematically investigate the potential harms of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the peer review process. Background LLMs are increasingly used in academic processes, including peer review. While they can address challenges like reviewer scarcity and review efficiency, concerns about fairness, transparency and potential biases in LLM‐generated reviews have not been thoroughly investigated. Methods Claude 2.0 was used to generate peer review reports, rejection recommendations, citation requests and refutations for 20 original, unmodified cancer biology manuscripts obtained from eLife 's new publishing model. Artificial intelligence (AI) detection tools (zeroGPT and GPTzero) assessed whether the reviews were identifiable as LLM‐generated.All LLM‐generated outputs were evaluated for reasonableness by two expert on a five‐point Likert scale. Results LLM‐generated reviews were somewhat consistent with human reviews but lacked depth, especially in detailed critique. The model proved highly proficient at generating convincing rejection comments and could create plausible citation requests, including requests for unrelated references. AI detectors struggled to identify LLM‐generated reviews, with 82.8% of responses classified as human‐written by GPTzero. Conclusions LLMs can be readily misused to undermine the peer review process by generating biased, manipulative, and difficult‐to‐detect content, posing a significant threat to academic integrity. Guidelines and detection tools are needed to ensure LLMs enhance rather than harm the peer review process.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.