A global survey by IOP Publishing (IOPP) has found increasing polarization among reviewers in the physical sciences on the use of generative AI in peer review. The study follows a similar survey conducted last year which showed that while some researchers are beginning to embrace AI tools, others remain cautious about the potential negative impact, particularly when AI is used to assess their own work.
The results show that 41% of respondents believe generative AI will have a positive impact on peer review, compared with 37% who see it as negative. Only 22% remain neutral or unsure, down from 36% in 2024. While 32% of researchers already use AI tools to assist with reviews, 57% would be unhappy if a reviewer used generative AI to write a peer review report on a manuscript they had co-authored and 42% would be unhappy if AI were used to augment a peer review report. 42% believe they could accurately detect an AI-written peer review report on a manuscript they had co-authored.
Survey findings also indicate gender and career-stage differences, with women more skeptical of AI’s usefulness and junior researchers generally more optimistic than senior colleagues. Among those using AI, the most common applications are editing grammar and improving text flow (21%) and summarizing articles (13%). A small number admitted uploading full manuscripts into AI chatbots to generate review reports, raising confidentiality concerns.
IOPP currently prohibits the use of AI in peer review due to ethical and legal risks. However, the study suggests opportunities for developing secure, integrated AI tools that support, rather than replace, human judgment.
Click here to read the original press release.
