Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: A Bibliometric-Guided Thematic Review and a Task-Contingent Legitimacy Framework

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) has prompted extensive debate about their appropriate role in peer review, scholarly publishing’s primary quality-control mechanism. However, AI has not yet been formally approved as a peer-review tool by most academic journals. This study reviews the emerging AI-in-peer-review literature to identify research trends, synthesize empirical evidence across review tasks, and develop a conceptual framework for AI-assisted review. Using a PRISMA-guided Scopus search (176 records identified, 162 included), we combined three-layer content analysis (theme, editorial stance, and AI autonomy) with a synthesis of 18 empirical studies. The literature expanded from 6 records before 2023 to 45 records in the first half of 2026 and remains dominated by commentary and opinion (57%), with the remaining 43% comprising research studies, technical work, and reviews. Editorial perspectives are generally balanced, and authors overwhelmingly favor assistive, human-in-the-loop AI over human-only or full automation. Empirical evidence shows a task-contingent pattern: AI performs well on narrowly defined evaluative tasks (Pearson r > 0.9 in some settings) but less reliably when predicting editorial decisions (accuracy 40–67%; correlations as low as ρ = 0.00). AI legitimacy may depend more on task type than on any governance position, a pattern we formalize in a Task-Contingent Legitimacy framework offering a task-tiered policy approach and testable propositions.