The inevitable future of peer review: Human and AI integrated peer review system
Open accessAbstract
doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.4.11941 How to cite this: Shah FA, Jawaid SA. The inevitable future of peer review: Human and AI integrated peer review system. Pak J Med Sci. 2025;41(4):941-943. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.4.11941 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The increase in manuscript submissions and the limited pool of qualified reviewers have placed considerable strain on the traditional peer review system.
“The increase in manuscript submissions and the limited pool of qualified reviewers have placed considerable strain on the traditional peer review system”
From Who Reviews the Reviewer? A Multi‐Agent LLM Architecture With Meta‐Review Synthesis for Editorial Peer Review (2026) · cites this paper as Shah and Jawaid 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- [1]Chapelle FH The history and practice of peer review Ground Water 2014 52 122 132 doi:10.1111/gwat.12139 24266884 · DOI
- [2]Tedford A Rolling out our new editorial system:EVISE®:Find out how the new system will help reviewers streamline their workload 2015 Elsevier www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/rolling-out-our-new-editorial-system-evise
- [3]AJE Peer review:how we found 15 million hours of lost time 2018 (Accessed December 20, 2019) URL https://www.aje.com/en/arc/peer-review-process-15-million-hours-lost-time
- [4]Kovanis M Porcher R Ravaud P Trinquart L The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature:Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise PLoS One 2016 11 11 e0166387 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 27832157 PMC5104353 · DOI
- [5]Checco A Bracciale L Loreti P Pinfield S Bianchi G Humanit Soc Sci Commun 2021 8 25 doi. 10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Kousha K Thelwall M Artificial Intelligence to Support Publishing and Peer Review:A Summary and Review Learned Publishing 2024 37 1 4 12 doi:10.1002/leap.1570 · DOI
- [7]Farber S Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process:towards a hybrid approach Higher Educ Res Dev 2025 1 15 doi:10.1080/07294360.2024.2445575 · DOI · Paper page
- [8]Lee CJ Sugimoto C Freeman GZ Cronin B Bias in peer review J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2013 64 2 17 doi:10.1002/asi.22784 · DOI · Paper page
- [9]Zielinski C Winker M Aggarwal R Ferris L Heinemann M Florencio Lapeña J Pai S Ing E Citrome L for the WAME Board Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts:WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications WAME Accessed on:Feb. 17, 2025 January 20, 2023 https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106 37615142
- [11]AI in Peer Review:A Recipe for Disaster or Success? Accessed on:Feb 17, 2025 Available at: https://asm.org/articles/2024/november/ai-peer-review-recipe-disaster-success
- [12]Meadows A Wallace J Wulf K Reflections on Peer Review and the Humane Future of Publishing The Scholarly Kitchen Published online:September 25, 2023
- [13]Fiorillo L Mehta V Accelerating editorial processes in scientific journals:Leveraging AI for rapid manuscript review Oral Oncol Rep 2024 10 1 7 doi:10.1016/j.oor.2024.100511 · DOI
- [14]Bauchner H Rivara FP Use of artificial intelligence and the future of peer review Health Aff Sch 2024 2 5 qxa.e058 doi:10.1093/haschl/qxae058 PMC11095530 38757006 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, Ș., Oprea, S., & Bâra, A. (2026) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.70163
- Authors
- Shah, F. A., & Jawaid, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Lady Reading Hospital (PK)
- Corresponding author
- Shah, Faaiz Ali
- Venue
- Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences
- Publisher
- Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences
- Published
- 2025-03-20
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 941-943
- ISSN
- 1681-715X (ISSN-L)
- 1682-024X
- PMC
- PMC12022572
- OpenAlex
- W4408902321
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- peer review, artificial intelligence, human-AI collaboration, scholarly publishing, manuscript review
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
