Cited by 5Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic Writing and Publishing

Who reviewed this? Toward responsible integration of large language models for peer review of scientific articles in dental medicine

Open access
Eggmann, Florin, Hildebrand, Hauke, Bornstein, Michael M.·2025·SWISS DENTAL JOURNAL SSO – Science and Clinical Topics

Abstract

The introduction and advancement of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini, present both opportunities and challenges for peer review in dental research. In this article, we propose a framework to inform the discourse on the responsible use of LLMs in dental peer review. We conducted a cross-sectional review of peer review policies from the top 50 dental journals, based on their 2024 Journal Impact Factor, to assess current guidance on LLM use. Our analysis revealed variability across dental journals: some journals permit restricted LLM use under specific conditions, while many either prohibit their use or lack explicit policies. Key concerns regarding LLM use identified by the authors include potential breaches of confidentiality, ambiguity in authorship, reduced reviewer accountability, and inherent limitations of LLMs in terms of domainspecific expertise and factual accuracy. Our proposed framework addresses confidentiality safeguards, suggested appropriate LLM applications, areas requiring caution, disclosure requirements, and accountability standards. It emphasizes that reviewers retain full responsibility for all submitted content, irrespective of LLM assistance. To protect confidentiality, the framework encourages offline or locally hosted LLMs. It also recommends regular policy reviews and reviewer training. This framework aims to support the thoughtful adoption of LLMs in dental research publishing. When employed judiciously, LLMs offer potential benefits in improving review clarity and efficiency, particularly for reviewers writing in a non-native language. However, their use must be grounded in clear ethical principles to ensure the integrity of dental peer review.

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 · 10.61872/sdj-2025-03-01

Cites

0 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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Eggmann F, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU, Blatz MB. Implications of large language models such as chatgpt for dental medicine. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(7):1098-102.
  2. Bornstein MM, Staedler YM, Cattin PC. Artificial intelligence will change the research environ- ment in dental medicine dramatically: Will al- gorithms replace literature reviews in the near future? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2025;54(5):329-31.
  3. Büttner M, Leser U, Schneider L, Schwendicke F. Natural language processing: Chances and challenges in dentistry. J Dent. 2024;141:104796.
  4. Fuchs A, Trachsel T, Weiger R, Eggmann F. Chat- GPT's performance in dentistry and aller- gyimmunology assessments: A comparative study. Swiss Dent J. 2023;134(2):1-17.
  5. Uribe SE, Maldupa I. Estimating the use of ChatGPT in dental research publications. J Dent. 2024;149:105275.
  6. Rokhshad R, Bagherianlemraski M, Ehsani SS, Haghighat S, Schwendicke F. Large language models for the screening step in systematic re- views in dentistry. J Dent. 2025;160:105877.
  7. Biswas S, Dobaria D, Cohen HL. ChatGPT and the future of journal reviews: A feasibility study. Yale J Biol Med. 2023;96(3):415-20.
  8. Saad A, Jenko N, Ariyaratne S, Birch N, Iyengar KP, Davies AM, et al. Exploring the potential of ChatGPT in the peer review process: An obser- vational study. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2024;18(2):102946.
  9. Checco A, Bracciale L, Loreti P, Pinfield S, Bian- chi G. AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and social sciences communications. 2021;8(1):1- 11.
  10. Lo Vecchio N. Personal experience with AI-ge- nerated peer reviews: A case study. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2025;10(1):4.
  11. Schintler LA, McNeely CL, Witte J. A critical ex- amination of the ethics of AI-mediated peer re- view. arXiv preprint arXiv:230912356. 2023.
  12. Hosseini M, Horbach SP. Fighting reviewer fa- tigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of chatgpt and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2023;8(1):4.
  13. BaHammam AS. Peer review in the artificial in- telligence era: A call for developing responsible integration guidelines. Nat Sci Sleep. 2025;17:159-64.
  14. Joachim MV, Dodson TB, Laviv A. How artificial intelligence differs from humans in peer re- view. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025;83(8):1040- 50.
  15. Li ZQ, Xu HL, Cao HJ, Liu ZL, Fei YT, Liu JP. Use of artificial intelligence in peer review among top 100 medical journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(12):e2448609.
  16. Wiwanitmkit S, Wiwanitkit V. Artificial intelli- gence, academic publishing, scientific writing, peer review, and ethics. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;39(4):e20230377.
  17. Liang W, Izzo Z, Zhang Y, Lepp H, Cao H, Zhao X, et al. Monitoring AI-modified content at scale: A case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews. In: Ruslan S, Zico K, Katherine H, Adrian W, Nuria O, Jonathan S, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 41st Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning; Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research: PMLR; 2024. p. 29575--620.
  18. Poisot T. Here is a revised version of your re- view with improved clarity [Internet]. https://buttondown.com/ctrl-alt-tim/ar- chive/vol-24-here-is-a-revised-version-of- your-review/ (last accessed on August 19, 2025). 2025. [cited 2025].
  19. Routledge D, Pariente N. On improving the sus- tainability of peer review. PLoS Biol. 2025;23(3):e3003127.
  20. Weber MT, Noll R, Marchl A, Facchinello C, Grü- newaldt A, Hügel C, et al. Medbot vs realdoc: Efficacy of large language modeling in physi- cian-patient communication for rare diseases. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025;32(5):775-83.
  21. Ayers JW, Poliak A, Dredze M, Leas EC, Zhu Z, Kelley JB, et al. Comparing physician and artifi- cial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media fo- rum. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(6):589-96.
  22. Lin Z. Hidden prompts in manuscripts exploit AI-assisted peer review. arXiv preprint arXiv:250706185. 2025.
  23. Rich AS, Gureckis TM. Lessons for artificial in- telligence from the study of natural stupidity. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2019;1(4):174- 80.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eggmann, F., Hildebrand, H., & Bornstein, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Basel (CH)
Venue
SWISS DENTAL JOURNAL SSO – Science and Clinical Topics
Published
2025-09-23
Volume
135
Issue
03
Pages
1-15
ISSN
  • 2296-6498 (ISSN-L)
  • 2296-6501
OpenAlex
W4414426116
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SWISS DENTAL JOURNAL SSO – Science and Clinical Topics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
large language models, peer review, dental journals, responsible AI use, confidentiality, authorship, disclosure requirements, reviewer training, dental research publishing
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Confidentiality, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dentistry, Humans, Language, Peer Review, Peer Review, Research, Dental 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