Peer review in the time of artificial intelligence

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-026-02177-2

Publish Date: 2026-04-20 03:00:00

Source Domain: www.nature.com

Accountability and Validation: Any output generated by generative AI tools must be validated by a human to ensure factual accuracy; thus, there should be transparency in disclosing the use of AI in the peer review process.
Confidentiality: Reviewers should avoid uploading manuscripts to generative AI tools to prevent potential breaches of confidentiality.
Ethical and Legal Guidelines: Editors and reviewers must follow legal and ethical guidelines to responsibly use AI, ensuring that the tools enhance rather than undermine the integrity of peer review.
Critical Thinking and Use: Generative AI should support, but not replace, human judgment, expertise, and critical thinking in the peer review to maintain the rigor and trust in scholarly work.
Ongoing Education: Continuous learning and awareness are necessary for both editors and reviewers to understand the advantages, limitations, and best practices for using AI tools effectively.
Transparency and Critical Use: To maximize the benefits of AI without sacrificing the critical aspects of peer review, reviewers must use the tools critically and transparently.
Balancing Efficiency and Rigor: The deployment of AI must strike a balance between efficiency gains and maintaining the scientific rigor, confidentiality, and accountability inherent in the peer review process.
Adaptability: Nature Portfolio is committed to evolving its guidelines for AI use in peer review in line with technological advancements, community expectations, and emerging standards.