AI in peer review should be a second reader, not a judge
I have often wondered why, among three reviews of the same biomedical research manuscript, one reviewer may dismiss nearly everything the authors have done, another may offer a moderate assessment, and a third may strongly favor publication. Human review remains essential, but human judgments can vary widely. Some disagreement is useful because reviewers notice different things. In other cases, the differences may reflect misunderstanding, fatigue, disciplinary preference, or bias. The …
AI in peer review should be a second reader, not a judge



















