The AI Peer-Review Crisis by Emanuel Maiberg

“The machine content was obvious to me because there was not a single coherent critique that meaningfully engaged with my paper,” LoVecchio wrote on his personal website late last year. On our call, he told me the responses were generic, and simply told him he needed to cite more sources and to work on his transitions, which he said was “preposterous.”

• Unethical academics, AI, and peer review by Nicholas Lo Vecchio:

  Just now, in mid-December 2023, I received two reviewer reports, written in English, from a language journal based in Italy. Both reviewers assessed my submitted article as being “suitable for publication if significant changes are made.” Both reviewer reports were extraordinarily vague and unspecific, making all sorts of extremely general critiques but without any actual engagement with my arguments. The more I read them, the more obvious it was that the human “reviewers” did not assess my paper at all, but a generative AI program did, with a bare minimum of human prompting and post-editing. I immediately responded to the editors, informing them of the situation.