CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI

Open access
Kankanhalli, Atreyi, National University of Singapore·2024·Journal of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1jais.00865
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI), including recent generative forms, are significantly impacting our lives and work. A key aspect of our work as IS researchers is the publishing of research articles, for which peer review serves as the primary means of quality control. While there have been debates about whether and to what extent AI can replace researchers in various domains, including IS, we lack an in-depth understanding of how AI can impact the peer review process. Considering the high volume of submissions and limited reviewer resources, there is a pressing need to use AI to augment the review process. At the same time, advances in AI have been accompanied by concerns about biases introduced by AI tools and the ethics of using them, among other issues such as hallucinations. Thus, critical issues to understand are: how can AI augment and potentially automate the review process, what are the pitfalls in doing so, and what er the implications for IS research and peer review practice. I will offer my views on these issues in this opinion piece.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1jais.00865

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Acemoglu, D. Ed. (2021). Redesigning artificial intelligence. MIT Press.
  2. Anson, C. M., Hall, S., Pemberton, M., & Moskovitz, C. (2020). Reuse in STEM research writing: Rhetorical and practical considerations and challenges. AILA Review, 33(1), 120-135.
  3. Avital, M. (2018). Peer review: Toward a blockchain- enabled market-based ecosystem. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 42, 646-653.
  4. Burton-Jones, A. (2023). Editing Innovation in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 47(3), i-xii.
  5. Burton-Jones, A., Boh, W. F., Oborn, E., & Padmanabhan, B. (2021). Advancing research transparency at MIS Quarterly: A pluralistic approach. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), iii-xviii.
  6. Burton-Jones, A., & Sarker, S. (2021). Editor's comments: Creating our editorial board position statement on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). MIS Quarterly, 45(4), i-x.
  7. Charlin, L., & Zemel, R.S. (2013). The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system. Proceedings of 30th International Conference on Machine Learning.
  8. Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-11.
  9. Chubb, J., Cowling, P., & Reed, D. (2022). Speeding up to keep up: Exploring the use of AI in the research process. AI & Society, 37(4), 1439- 1457.
  10. Crossley, S., Heintz, A., Choi, J. S., Batchelor, J., Karimi, M., & Malatinszky, A. (2023). A large- scaled corpus for assessing text readability. Behavior Research Methods, 55(2), 491-507.
  11. Feliciani, T., Luo, J., Ma, L., Lucas, P., Squazzoni, F., Marušić, A., & Shankar, K. (2019). A scoping review of simulation models of peer review. Scientometrics, 121, 555-594.
  12. Glass, R. L., Ramesh, V., & Vessey, I. (2004). An analysis of research in computing disciplines. Communications of the ACM, 47(6), 89-94.
  13. Hardaway, D. E., & Scamell, R. W. (2012). Open knowledge creation: Bringing transparency and inclusiveness to the peer review process. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 339-346.
  14. Kane, G. C., & Fichman, R. G. (2009). The shoemaker's children: Using wikis for information systems teaching, research, and publication. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 1-17.
  15. Kohli, R., & Straub, D. (2011). How reviews shape MIS Quarterly: A primer for reviewers and editors. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), iii-vii.
  16. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.
  17. Leidner, D. E., Carte, T., Chatterjee, S., Chen, D., Jones, M., & Preston, D. (2022). On civil critique: reviewing for JAIS. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(1), 1-12.
  18. Lloyd, K. (2018). Bias amplification in artificial intelligence systems. ArXiv. https://arxiv. org/abs/1809.07842
  19. Loebbecke, C., El Sawy, O. A., Kankanhalli, A., Markus, M. L., & Te'eni, D. (2020). Artificial intelligence meets IS researchers: Can it replace us? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 47(1), 273-283.
  20. Mandaviwalla, M., Patnayakuni, R., & Schuff, D. (2008). Improving the peer review process with information technology. Decision Support Systems, 41(4), 29-40.
  21. Nuijten, M. B., & Polanin, J. R. (2020). "Statcheck": Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(5), 574-579.
  22. Petrescu, M., & Krishen, A. S. (2022). The evolving crisis of the peer-review process. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 10(3), 185-186.
  23. Price, S., & Flach, P. A. (2017). Computational support for academic peer review: A perspective from artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 60(3), 70-79.
  24. Publons (2018) Global state of peer review 2018. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global- State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf
  25. Rai, A. (2019) Developing virtuous reviewers, MIS Quarterly, 43(4), iii-iv.
  26. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016) Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson.
  27. Saunders, C. (2005). From the trenches: Thoughts on developmental reviewing. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), iii.
  28. Schmidt, T. (2017). Statcheck does not work: All the numbers. Reply to Nuijten et al. (2017). Available at http://psyarxiv.com/hr6qy
  29. Shmueli, G., Maria Colosimo, B., Martens, D., Padman, R., Saar-Tsechansky, M., Liu Sheng, O. R., Street, N.W., and Tsui, K. L. (2023). How can IJDS authors, reviewers, and editors use (and misuse) generative AI? INFORMS: Journal on Data Science, 2(1), 1-9.
  30. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360-365.
  31. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Fry, J., Creaser, C., & Willett, P. (2018). "Let the community decide"? The vision and reality of soundness- only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation, 74(1), 137-161.
  32. Stafford, T.F. (2016). Optimizing the business side of science: Publication review cycles and process management considerations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 38, 296-306.
  33. Susarla, A., Gopal, R., Thatcher, J. B., & Sarker, S. (2023). The Janus effect of generative AI: Charting the path for responsible conduct of scholarly activities in information systems. Information Systems Research, 34(2), 399-408.
  34. Tarafdar, M., & Davison, R.M. (2018). Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(6), 523- 551.
  35. Vilhuber, L. (2020). Reproducibility and replicability in economics. Harvard Data Science Review, 2(4), 1-39.
  36. Wright, R. T., Saunders, C., Sarker, S., Kankanhalli, A., Whitley, E. A., Tuunainen, V. K., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2023). The scholarly divide: Insights from the AIS well-being project. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52(1), 777-797.
  37. Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 118-132.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kankanhalli, A., & National University of Singapore
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Kankanhalli, Atreyi
ORCID
Kankanhalli, Atreyi
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2024
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
76-84
ISSN
1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1jais.00865
OpenAlex
W4390491508
Cited by
47
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 10
FWCI
69.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
peer review, generative AI, AI-assisted peer review, algorithmic bias, AI hallucination, AI ethics, research publishing, information systems research

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