Abstract Manuscript review is crucial to scientific progress. Although artificial intelligence (AI) may appeal to time‐pressed clinicians for its efficiency, peer review should be performed by “peers”, not AI. While AI use in writing has gained wider permission, its use in reviewing remains more strictly regulated. Some argue that this inequity and reviewer shortages justify broader AI use in review. However, the long‐term impact of AI on publishing and human cognition remains unknown. Given this uncertainty, strict regulation of AI use in peer review should be maintained until its usefulness and safety are confirmed.
Shigeki Matsubara (Sat,) studied this question.