Twenty years after open access transformed scholarly publishing, another game-changer in the form of generative AI emerged, bringing with it significant implications for the quality of the scholarly record. The peer-review system, which has long been the most important gatekeeping and evaluation mechanism used by publishers, is challenged by reviewer fatigue and shortages and now faces additional pressure from AI-enabled research integrity violations and AI-generated peer reviews. Drawing on data from 47 qualitative interviews conducted with publishers and publishing-adjacent stakeholders, this poster presents insights into how AI has affected editorial quality mechanisms across the industry. In this context, academic publishers are split into two groups: Smaller- and mid-sized presses that mainly rely on peer review for quality control as AI tools are lacking. Large publishing houses that supplement peer review with AI-powered software to help identify and address research integrity issues stemming from AI (ab)use. For publishers, access to AI-detection tools – or the lack thereof – will have long-term effects on the quality of the scholarly record, which may also impact the academic publishing ecosystem in the future. The two-pronged discussion question becomes: what does review-based gatekeeping look like in the age of AI, and how can all publishers, together with the scholarly community, ensure that the quality of their publications is preserved?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marshall et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: