Recently, I assigned a peer-review exercise to my DNP students. One student turned in an unusual assignment. The review consisted of a summary with vague descriptors and language uncommon in academic writing. It also lacked a substantive critique of the methods and findings. I strongly suspect that artificial intelligence (AI) was used to complete the assignment, which, according to the syllabus, was not allowed. Not long after, I read an editorial stating that many peer reviews may be AI generated and are often not disclosed (Zou, 2024).
The implications of AI-generated peer reviews are concerning, particularly when not disclosed. If students are already turning to AI to complete academic tasks, it is not hard to imagine researchers are doing the same. The lack of disclosure undermines the integrity of the review process and raises questions about the authenticity and scientific rigor of the feedback. As educators and journal editors, we must consider how to guide responsible use of AI while preserving the core values of scholarly peer review.
AI-generated peer review has the potential to support the scientific publication process productively (Naddaf, 2025). For example, AI tools can help identify expert reviewers based on study design or topic specialization. They can also assist in editing manuscripts for clarity and grammar, particularly benefiting authors who are not native English speakers. This allows human reviewers to focus on evaluating the scientific merit of the work. Collaboration is key; instead of AI-generated peer review, we should consider AI-assisted peer review.
Peer review is more than editing—it is the foundation of scientific rigor. At a time when public trust in scientific evidence is increasingly challenged, expert peer review remains more essential than ever. Although AI can serve as a collaborator, it cannot replace the judgment and expertise of human scientific reviewers.
Security is another concern. Confidentiality is not guaranteed once an unpublished paper is uploaded to an AI application. Some platforms may not be transparent about how data are stored or used. We cannot assume that all applications are encrypted or follow strict protocols for handling unpublished work.
There are currently no universal ethical standards governing AI use in publishing. Journals owe it to their contributors to protect the integrity of submissions and ensure that peer reviewers adhere to established guidelines. “A scientific, peer-reviewed journal” implies that a human expert will evaluate the manuscript and uphold the standards of scientific credibility. Researchers submit their work with the expectation that a qualified peer will assess its contribution to the field and provide feedback to enhance the science.
At the Oncology Nursing Forum, we maintain clear guidelines regarding the use of AI. Authors are required to disclose any AI involvement in manuscript preparation, and we strictly prohibit uploading manuscripts to AI platforms for peer review. This policy protects the confidentiality, originality, and integrity of scientific work. As AI becomes more established in the peer-review process, journals should notify contributors about what specific software may be used.
As I prepare for the 2025–2026 semester, I will incorporate AI into my peer-review exercises for my doctoral students, focusing on the ethical use of AI and human expert opinion. Forbidding the use of AI in school is not helpful to nursing scholars. By incorporating AI into the assignment, students will learn to evaluate its capabilities and limitations and use it responsibly within scholarly work. AI capabilities will continue to advance, and it is vital to remain informed and ethically grounded as these tools evolve.
Artificial intelligence was used to improve the clarity and readability of this editorial.
REFERENCES
- Naddaf M. AI is transforming peer review—And many scientists are worried. Nature. 2025;639(8056):852–854. doi: 10.1038/d41586-025-00894-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zou J. ChatGPT is transforming peer review—How can we use it responsibly? Nature. 2024;635(8037):10. doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-03588-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]