Yes, reviewers can use AI tools to help write peer review reports, but only as an assistive aid — not as a substitute for their own critical judgment, and always in compliance with the journal’s disclosure policies.
The short answer: AI is allowed, with caveats
Most major publishers (including Elsevier, Springer Nature, and IEEE) now permit the use of AI tools in peer review if reviewers disclose their use and take full responsibility for the content. The key rule is that AI can help you draft, organize, or check language, but it cannot independently evaluate the manuscript’s scientific merit. You remain accountable for every claim and recommendation.
What AI can legitimately help with
- Summarizing the manuscript: Quickly extract key objectives, methods, and findings to ensure you haven’t missed anything.
- Checking structure and clarity: Flag sections that are hard to follow or where the logic jumps.
- Drafting neutral, constructive phrasing: Especially useful for non-native English speakers who want to avoid harsh or unclear wording.
- Verifying references: Cross-check that cited works exist and are relevant (though you should still spot-check manually).
What AI should never do
- Generate the final verdict: The decision to accept, revise, or reject must come from your own expertise.
- Assess novelty or significance: AI lacks the field-specific context to judge whether a contribution is truly new.
- Write without your review: If you paste a manuscript into an AI and simply forward its output, that’s a breach of confidentiality and ethics.
Practical steps for responsible AI-assisted review
- Check journal policy first — look for an “AI use” or “ethics” section in the reviewer guidelines.
- Disclose your use — most journals require a sentence like: “I used an AI tool to help summarize the manuscript and refine my language, but all analysis is my own.”
- Keep the manuscript confidential — never upload unpublished content to a public AI tool. If you use one, pick a service with strong data privacy (e.g., WisPaper’s Scholar QA, which processes your documents with traceable citations and doesn’t train on your uploads).
- Do the thinking yourself — use AI for grammar and structure, not for scientific conclusions.
What about AI detecting errors?
Some reviewers now use AI to check statistical reporting or image integrity. That’s acceptable if you disclose it and interpret the results yourself. However, be cautious: AI flags are not definitive proof of misconduct — they’re starting points for your own investigation.
Bottom line
AI is a powerful assistant for peer review, but the responsibility stays with you. Transparent disclosure, careful oversight, and a clear line between “helping” and “replacing” your judgment will keep your reviews ethical, useful, and aligned with publisher expectations. When in doubt, ask the editor before using any tool.
