Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative interview study reveals shifting attitudes toward artificial intelligence in peer review among early career researchers, highlighting emerging misuse alongside potential benefits.
The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs), their work life and scholarly communications, began by studying generational—Millennial—change (H1 c.2016), then pandemic change (H2 c2020) and is now investigating yet another: artificial intelligence (H3 2024–). We report here on a scoping pilot study, which looks at the impact of AI on peer review from over 150 international ECRs from all disciplines. The data were collected by open‐ended, in‐depth interviews, but being a convenience sample the findings need to be treated with caution. We find that ECRs are displaying a complex, shifting attitude towards the integration of AI into peer review, characterised by cautious optimism on the one hand and scepticism on the other. ECRs are already reporting specific instances of AI increasingly influencing reviewing practices: both potentially beneficial applications and actual misuse. AI is seen as a new systemic threat, potentially worsening the alleged exploitative nature of publishing if adopted without ethical guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicholas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: