ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Susceptibility of large language models to hidden nudge injection during simulated medical peer review: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies might offer new possibilities for the peer review process; however, AI models' possible vulnerability to hidden nudges designed to elicit positive reviews raises concerns about manipulation susceptibility, which remains unexplored. We aimed to evaluate AI model susceptibility to hidden nudges in peer review.
methodsThis quasi-experimental study was conducted between July and December 2025. Four commercial AI models were evaluated simultaneously: GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google), DeepSeek-V3 (DeepSeek), and Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic). We used 90 pre-print and 90 published manuscripts in critical care and cardiology to feed the AI models. All manuscripts were converted to individual Microsoft Word files, with identifying information removed, to mimic a manuscript submitted to a journal for peer review. Each manuscript underwent three independent evaluations per model using standardized prompts requesting evaluation and recommendation on whether to accept or reject it for publication. First, we evaluated the manuscript without any nudge. Second, we inserted a hidden nudge opposing the initial recommendation (e.g., a negative nudge if initially accepted). Finally, we evaluated the nudged manuscripts using a modified prompt warning about potential hidden nudges. All recommendations were categorized as accept or reject. The main outcomes were the change rates in recommendations after nudge insertion compared to initial recommendations, and after nudge insertion with the modified prompt, analyzed separately for each AI model.
resultsAcross all AI models tested, nudge insertion led to a change in the recommendation in 84.4% of the time (608/720), with Deepseek being the most susceptible model (100% of change), followed by Gemini (97.8% of change), Chat GPT (82.8% of change) and Claude (57.2% of change). Using a specific prompt to warn AI models about potential malicious nudge injections in the manuscripts did not substantially alter the results. Recommendations were still modified in 76.8% of cases (553/720).
conclusionsIn this quasi-experimental study, all tested AI models were highly susceptible to hidden nudge insertions in manuscripts during simulated peer review. Importantly, explicitly warning AI models about potential nudge injections does not meaningfully reduce their susceptibility to manipulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.