AI and the Abuse of Peer Review
A Failure to Improve a Researcher's Draft Text
An Abuse of the Process
AI reveals more about human failings than technological successes:
— Wayne Bradshaw (@NonwayneWayne) March 10, 2025
"I submitted my research for 'expert' review by my peers in the field, yet received AI-generated feedback that ultimately failed to improve my work."https://t.co/EvkeCKz2UV via @ConversationEDU
Disconcerting Flaws in Feedback
Key Quote:
First, the tone was far too uniform and generic. There was also an unexpected lack of nuance, depth or personality. And the reviewer had provided no page or line numbers and no specific examples of what needed to be improved to guide my revisions.
For example, they suggested I “remove redundant explanations”. However, they didn’t indicate which explanations were redundant, or even where they occurred in the manuscript.
They also suggested I order my reference list in a bizarre manner which disregarded the journal requirements and followed no format that I have seen replicated in a scientific journal. They provided comments pertaining to subheadings that didn’t exist.
For more, see the full piece authored by Timothy Hugh Barker, Senior Research Fellow, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide.