Interesting article in Scholarly Kitchen. Read online: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/03/18/guest-post-could-ai-help-...
'Let’s start by discussing the current state of peer review: It’s broken. The fundamental problem is that there’s a mismatch between the number of available peer reviewers and the volume of manuscripts that are submitted to peer-reviewed journals...
'In summary, what I’ve been saying is that the peer-review process, writ large, is still of vital importance to science, but that the traditional approaches to peer-review — upon which science has relied to varying degrees since at least the late 19th Century — is clearly failing in the current age. The advent of AI, especially the large-language models such as ChatGPT, holds promise for improving the peer review process, but AI also introduces a number of new pitfalls and perils. Recent experience with alternative approaches to scholarly peer review suggests that human expertise will not be supplanted from the peer-review process anytime soon. In practical terms, what I think this means is that, while AI may enhance human efficiency, on the whole, it is unlikely to make the peer-review process any easier for reviewers, editors, or authors.'
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org