A survey reveals researchers prefer AI as a self-checking tool for manuscript improvement before peer review.
A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers. A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lemberger et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: