Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The peer review system has often been characterized as broken. The adoption of generative AI has led to a steep increase in submissions that exposes a structural imbalance beneath it. We argue that this imbalance is not technological in nature, but reflects a deeper misalignment that performativity has brought to scholarly work. We offer a framework of AI‐mediated production and consumption of scholarly work, diagnose the effects of AI on the peer review system, and propose five recommendations to realign the role of human judgment in the process of peer evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arndt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: