ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Judgment: Assistance, Dependence, or Disruption?
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Student Assessment, Scientific Writing & Peer Review: Promise, Pitfalls, and the Need for Educational Governance.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming scholarly publishing not by replacing editors or reviewers, but by reshaping how scientific judgment is formed within editorial and peer review systems. Traditionally, manuscripts entered peer review carrying their methodological weaknesses, analytical inconsistencies, and unsupported conclusions for human reviewers to identify and challenge. That sequence is changing. AI is increasingly being used during editorial triage and peer review workflows to evaluate methodological coherence, identify analytical gaps, summarize manuscripts, and highlight potential weaknesses before independent human critique fully develops. While this may improve efficiency, manuscript quality, and the precision of editorial screening, its deeper influence lies in the less visible ways scientific evaluation may become framed by machine-generated interpretation. As reviewers increasingly begin their assessment through AI-generated summaries and critiques, concerns arise regarding the gradual outsourcing of scientific judgment and the potential erosion of independent critical thought. These shifts are emerging within academic systems already strained by publication pressure, reviewer fatigue, and expanding research output. AI may strengthen scholarly publishing by supporting human evaluation, but its growing influence also raises an important question: can scientific judgment remain truly independent when machine interpretation increasingly precedes human critique?
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.