Embed Notice

Nice article but the social dynamics of science mean that peer review is de facto a "throughput problem". LLM usage in PR will increase because it reduces pressures on overstretched researchers. We can't stop LLM PR without addressing those pressures.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-not-peer-so-it-cant-do-peer-review

Career pressures on scientists mean we don't have time to engage with PR but feel an obligation to editors (either personally or because we're worried they'll reject our own submissions if we don't). Banning LLMs but leaving the pressures in place will just lead to concealment.

I agree with the article that the good thing about PR is not that it's an error correcting mechanism. It's actually very bad at this. Instead, it's a mechanism to get peers to engage deeply with each others' work. We can get this benefit and reduce pressure by making PR optional and post publication.

As a footnote, it's fascinating and telling how the staunchest "defenders" of peer review (journals) show the most contempt for its actual value by their willingness to flirt with the normalisation of LLM "peer" review. It's almost as if they had some other motivation. 🤷♂️