AI is transforming peer review - and many scientists are worried.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Generative AI and Scientific Publishing: Preserving Accountability, Trust, and Governance.Anesthesiology · 2026
   Article
2. Is AI Redefining Scientific Publications?Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
   Article
3. Large Language Models and the Future of Peer-Reviewed Medical Publishing: Challenges, Editorial Responses, and a Framework for Responsible Integration.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026
   Review
4. AI in Medical Education Research, Writing, and Reviewing: JGME's Policy in 2026.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026
   Article
5. Where do I submit my next paper? A practical guide for biomedical researchers.Journal of biomedical research · 2026
   Article
6. Large Language Models in Scientific Publishing: Policy Landscape for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.Korean journal of radiology · 2026
   Article
7. Conducting Evaluations in the Context of Tertiary Prevention of Youth Crime: Reflections from the Youth Endowment Fund.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Review
8. Balancing AI and human insights in scientific discovery: Challenges and guidelines.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026
   Review
9. Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values.AI and ethics · 2026
   Article
10. Scientific Reviewing-Editors' Memo to Emerging Reviewers - 2.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026
    Article
11. AI-assisted peer review: efficiency for reviewers, burden for authors-a narrative review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Review
12. Authorship responsibilities of scientists who use AI research agents.Frontiers in genetics · 2026
    Review
13. AI in the Editorial Office: From Artificial Narrow to General Intelligence in Scientific Publishing.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025
    Article
14. Hidden Prompts in Manuscripts Threaten the Integrity of Peer Review and Research: Recommendations for Journals and Institutions.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025
    Article
15. [Narrative objects of science: From industrialization to the cobotization of the interpretive experience].Salud colectiva · 2025
    Article
16. Human Expertise in an AI-Collaborative Peer-Review Process.Oncology nursing forum · 2025
    Article
17. Changing peer review practices: transforming roles and future challenges.Acta orthopaedica · 2025
    Article
18. Will AI Kill the Review Article?Precision chemistry · 2025
    Article
19. Benefits and Risks of Using AI Agents in Research.The Hastings Center report
    Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as