AI-assisted peer review

Alessandro Checco (), Lorenzo Bracciale (), Pierpaolo Loreti, Stephen Pinfield () and Giuseppe Bianchi
Additional contact information
Alessandro Checco: The University of Sheffield
Lorenzo Bracciale: University of Rome Tor Vergata
Pierpaolo Loreti: University of Rome Tor Vergata
Stephen Pinfield: The University of Sheffield
Giuseppe Bianchi: University of Rome Tor Vergata

Palgrave Communications, 2021, vol. 8, issue 1, 1-11

Abstract: Abstract The scientific literature peer review workflow is under strain because of the constant growth of submission volume. One response to this is to make initial screening of submissions less time intensive. Reducing screening and review time would save millions of working hours and potentially boost academic productivity. Many platforms have already started to use automated screening tools, to prevent plagiarism and failure to respect format requirements. Some tools even attempt to flag the quality of a study or summarise its content, to reduce reviewers’ load. The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) create the potential for (semi) automated peer review systems, where potentially low-quality or controversial studies could be flagged, and reviewer-document matching could be performed in an automated manner. However, there are ethical concerns, which arise from such approaches, particularly associated with bias and the extent to which AI systems may replicate bias. Our main goal in this study is to discuss the potential, pitfalls, and uncertainties of the use of AI to approximate or assist human decisions in the quality assurance and peer-review process associated with research outputs. We design an AI tool and train it with 3300 papers from three conferences, together with their reviews evaluations. We then test the ability of the AI in predicting the review score of a new, unobserved manuscript, only using its textual content. We show that such techniques can reveal correlations between the decision process and other quality proxy measures, uncovering potential biases of the review process. Finally, we discuss the opportunities, but also the potential unintended consequences of these techniques in terms of algorithmic bias and ethical concerns.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00703-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().