What role can technology play in the peer review process?

Author: Sena Evren

Associate Publisher

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has become a ‘buzz word’ used in our sector. With everyone from publishers to researchers, and everything from conferences to webinars, exploring the role and relationship between innovation and technology in research and beyond. It is therefore fitting that this year’s Peer Review week is focused on the role of innovation and technology in one of the central processes of academic research – peer review. To explore this further we spoke with several reviewers who all reviewed papers for our Springer portfolio - Professor Warwick Dunn (Metabolomics), Dr. Arindam Naha (Archives of Microbiology) and Professor Shokoofeh Shamsi (Parasitology Research) - to ask for their reflections on the role technology can and should play in peer review.  

The integration of new and emerging technologies into an established peer review process is transforming how manuscripts can be evaluated – enhancing the speed and accuracy of a core research process whilst increasing transparency, accountability and better facilitating global collaboration.  

Whilst there are wider conversations around integrity and ethical use of AI tools (Springer Nature’s approach and policy for this can be found here), our reviewers were united in their opinion that technology and innovations in peer review can provide some “quick wins” for the industry. 

Enhancing transparency, supporting expertise, breaking down geographical barriers 

Transparency and integrity have always been essential to the process as summarised by Professor Shamsi “as a reviewer, you are trusted with a big responsibility [...]. Disagreements in science are normal, even necessary for progress, but they should always be communicated professionally. [Our role should be that of a] mentor and guide. Our aim should be to help authors improve their work while upholding the highest standards of scientific inquiry.” 

When it comes to expertise and transparency, Professor Dunn pointed out that technology is and can be integrated to fill the blanks by providing rapid literature reviews for reviewers. Having this up-to-date content available can enable reviewers to make faster decisions regarding for example the novelty of the research, as well as performing basic tasks like ensuring authors are citing the correct sources in their introductory paragraphs. This is not to replace reviewers, but to provide additional context in areas where they may feel less confident. 

Streamlining routine tasks 

Our reviewers saw the greatest value from emerging tech in its ability to better enable them to focus on the scientific content. As Dr. Naha commented, peer reviewers, like all members involved in the research and publishing process, are faced with daily time constraints and “the advancement in technology, particularly AI-powered tools, could mitigate these issues by automating preliminary checks, reducing biases through double-blind systems, matching papers to qualified experts, and offering standardised assessments of manuscript quality.” 

Professor Shamsi expanded on this, remarking that whilst technological advancements enable greater focus on the research at hand, it is “important to remember that these tools should support, not replace [reviewer] judgement. AI should be used thoughtfully in the peer review process. To ensure that ethical standards and scholarly values are upheld, it is important to have ongoing conversation and training on the responsible use of AI. This way, we can make sure these technologies are used wisely and transparently.” 

This aligns with points previously made in an article published in BMC Research Notes, which suggests that automated tools have significant potential for aiding in compliance with reporting guidelines like CONSORT and PRISMA, while leaving assessments of research quality and journal fit to reviewer judgement. 

Humans must remain in the loop 

Professor Dunn highlights the critical component of all of this is that whilst there is a role for emerging technologies to play in the review process, it must be supported by human oversight and judgement; technical expertise; and the commitment from the community at large to harness the benefit of technology in an ethically responsible way. An approach that is core to our own use of AI.   

“AI is here to stay, and we should welcome it with open arms to help us in our work and research [...]AI provides advantages to us to ensure we understand the scientific topic (including when acting as a reviewer) and to ensure ethical standards are observed including ensuring the novelty of work presented, and ensuring no manipulation of data or manuscripts has been performed.” 

Dr. Naha agreed, remarking that “As AI becomes more integrated into research and collaboration between peer reviewers. Human oversight will be key to upholding ethical standards and scholarly value, as well as remaining essential for nuanced evaluation and broader scientific interpretation. Importantly, human judgement of peer reviewers remains critical in assessing the originality, scientific intellect, and broader scientific impact of a study—factors that AI may not fully grasp.” 

## 

Technology has always played a key role at Springer Nature - it is central to our ability to serve our communities. AI, in particular, has revolutionised the ways we support researchers and enhance our business operations. We have and continue to work with our communities to explore how AI and other emerging technologies can work within research such as: using platforms like Snapp, and tools such as Geppetto, and SnappShot; by being the first publisher to experiment and produce the first AI generated book.  

Weeks like Peer Review week are a great opportunity to take stock of where we are, as organisations and as an industry, discussing the next steps and opportunities with our peers and wider academic community. You can find out on our AI hub, or via other activities taking place this week as part of our SpotlightOn series.

This piece was written following interviews with:

 - Prof. Shokoofeh Shamsi, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, reviewer for Parasitology Research

 -Prof. Warwick Dunn, Institute of Systems, Molecular & Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, reviewer for Metabolomics

 - Dr Arindam Naha, School of Medicine,  University of Virginia, reviewer for Archives of Microbiology

We thank them for their time and contributions.