The rapid emergence and evolution of generative AI has led to urgent debates particularly within the sciences about the use of AI in scholarly peer review. For a thoughtful synthesis, see primarily Hosseini and Horbach (2023). A dedicated debate on AI use in peer review is worth having for linguistics, overlapping as it does the humanities, social sciences, and (for some) natural sciences.

As an independent language researcher whose work is firmly humanities focused (queer lexicon), I have had some recent experiences with the matter. I have begun to post on my website on this topic:

www.nicospage.eu/blog

From my recent searching, I have compiled a list of some relevant publications on the topic. (So far, I only saw pertinent papers in English.) Most of the below deal with the sciences:
- Checco, Alessandro, et al. 2021. “AI-Assisted Peer Review.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8, no. 25. <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8>.
- Dergaa, Ismail, et al. 2023. “Enhancing Scholarly Discourse in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Guided Approach to Effective Peer Review Process.” La Tunisie médicale 101, no. 10, 721-726.
- Donker, Tjibbe. 2023. “The Dangers of Using Large Language Models for Peer Review.” Letter to The Lancet Infectious Diseases 23, no. 7, July 2023; and supplementary appendix. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00290-6>.
- Hosseini, Mohammad / Horbach, Serge P.J.M. 2023. “Fighting Reviewer Fatigue or Amplifying Bias? Considerations and Recommendations for Use of ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 8, no. 4. <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5>.
- Kaebnick, Gregory, et al. 2023. “Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.” Hastings Center Report 53, no. 5. <https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1507>.
- Kousha, Kayvan / Thelwall, Mike. 2024 [2023]. “Artificial Intelligence to Support Publishing and Peer Review: A Summary and Review.” Learned Publishing 37, no. 1. <https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1570>.
- Leung, Tiffany, et al. 2023. “Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 25, e51584. <https://doi.org/10.2196/51584>.
- Liang, Weixin, et al. 2023. “Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis.” arXiv, 3 October 2023. <arXiv:2310.01783v1>.
- Nath, Karl, et al. 2024. “AI in Peer Review: Publishing’s Panacea or a Pandora’s Box of Problems?” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 99, no. 1. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.11.013>.
- NIH. 2023. “The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies Is Prohibited for the NIH Peer Review Process.” National Institutes of Health, Notice Number: NOT-OD-23-149, 23 June 2023.
- Schintler, Laurie, et al. 2023. “A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review.” arXiv, 2 September 2023. <arXiv:2309.12356>.
- Wang Selonick, Lillian, et al. 2022. “AI and Peer Reviewer Selection: Will Tools Help or Hurt Efforts to Increase Diversity?” Poster presented at Society for Scholarly Publishing 2022 Annual Meeting in Chicago.

Meanwhile, press coverage is minimal. Outside of the scientific press, the media pieces I saw tended to be boosterish stuff about how AI just might fix the peer review overload in the sciences; a more critical engagement is therefore desirable.

I see only very limited relevance for linguistics or language study in such treatments and that is why I appeal to colleagues to begin an urgent discussion on the use of AI in peer review in our field.

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics