Home All Issues Issue articles Previous article

Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement

Valentine Joseph Owan 1,
Mercy Valentine Owan 2 * ,
Eyo Etim Akpandem 3
1 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Calabar, NIGERIA2 Ultimate Research Network, NIGERIA3 Department of Public Administration, University of Calabar, NIGERIA* Corresponding Author
Educational Point, 3(2), 2026, e174, https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655
Publication date: Oct 23, 2026
Conceptual Article
Open Access Open Access
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

Peer review is important in maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing, but the process faces challenges such as shortage of reviewers, delays, inconsistent judgements, and overlooked errors. These challenges have increased the need to consider the appropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) in peer review. Completely excluding AI or allowing it to function as an autonomous reviewer may not adequately address these problems. A Human–AI Augmented Review model is therefore proposed, in which AI supports clearly defined tasks under human supervision, while reviewers and editors retain responsibility for interpretation, ethical judgement, and editorial decisions. Peer review involves both routine technical checks and complex scholarly evaluation. AI can assist with repetitive and rule-based tasks such as manuscript screening, consistency checking, reviewer identification, and identification of reporting gaps. Human reviewers are still needed to assess methodology, scholarly contribution, and ethical issues. Effective use of AI requires a clear division of responsibilities, verification points within the review process, and governance measures to address bias, hallucinations, confidentiality, and excessive reliance on automation. Careful and limited use of AI can improve efficiency and reduce avoidable errors while maintaining accountability and trust in peer review.

KEYWORDS

scholarly publishing research integrity peer-review process editorial decision-making publication ethics

CITATION (APA)

Owan, V. J., Owan, M. V., & Akpandem, E. E. (2026). Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement. Educational Point, 3(2), e174. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655
Harvard
Owan, V. J., Owan, M. V., and Akpandem, E. E. (2026). Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement. Educational Point, 3(2), e174. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655
Vancouver
Owan VJ, Owan MV, Akpandem EE. Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement. Educational Point. 2026;3(2):e174. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655
AMA
Owan VJ, Owan MV, Akpandem EE. Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement. Educational Point. 2026;3(2), e174. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655
Chicago
Owan, Valentine Joseph, Mercy Valentine Owan, and Eyo Etim Akpandem. "Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement". Educational Point 2026 3 no. 2 (2026): e174. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655
MLA
Owan, Valentine Joseph et al. "Artificial Intelligence as an Assistant in Research Evaluation and Peer Review: A Critical Case for Augmentation Without Replacement". Educational Point, vol. 3, no. 2, 2026, e174. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19655

REFERENCES

  1. Akpan, S. M., & Owan, V. J. (2026). Self-directed research learning as a mediator between artificial intelligence utilisation and research productivity: A hierarchical regression approach. Education for Today, 22(4), 268–278. https://philpapers.org/archive/AKPSRL.pdf
  2. Almukhtar, A., Caddick, V., Naik, R., Goble, M., Mylonas, G., Darzi, A., Orihuela-Espina, F., & Leff, D. R. (2025). Objective assessment of cognitive workload in surgery: A systematic review. Annals of Surgery, 281(6), 942–951. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006370
  3. Carabantes, D., González-Geraldo, J. L., & Jover, G. (2023). ChatGPT could be the reviewer of your next scientific paper: Evidence on the limits of AI-assisted academic reviews. Profesional de la Información, 32(5), Article e320516. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.16
  4. Carobene, A., Padoan, A., Cabitza, F., Banfi, G., & Plebani, M. (2024). Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: Evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 62(5), 835–843. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-1136
  5. Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8
  6. Chong, S. W., & Lin, T. (2024). Feedback practices in journal peer-review: A systematic literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2164757
  7. Cox, L. A., Jr., Aven, T., Guikema, S., Haas, C. N., Lambert, J. H., Lowrie, K., Maldonado, G., & Wu, F. (2025). Can AI help authors prepare better risk science manuscripts? Risk Analysis, 45, 2471–2493. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70055
  8. Drori, I., & Te’eni, D. (2024). Human-in-the-loop AI reviewing: Feasibility, opportunities, and risks. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00867
  9. Ebadi, S., Nejadghanbar, H., Salman, A. R., & Khosravi, H. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI on peer review: Insights from journal reviewers. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1383–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09604-4
  10. Farber, S. (2024). Enhancing peer review efficiency: A mixed-methods analysis of artificial intelligence-assisted reviewer selection across academic disciplines. Learned Publishing, 37(4), Article e1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1638
  11. Farber, S. (2025). Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process: Towards a hybrid approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(4), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2445575
  12. García-Costa, D., Squazzoni, F., Mehmani, B., & Grimaldo, F. (2022). Measuring the developmental function of peer review: A multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals. PeerJ, 10, Article e13539. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13539
  13. Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 523–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7
  14. Ghazanfar, M. A., Cook, M., Tang, B., Tait, I., & Alijani, A. (2015). The effect of divided attention on novices and experts in laparoscopic task performance. Surgical Endoscopy, 29(3), 614–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3708-2
  15. Joachim, M. V., Dodson, T. B., & Laviv, A. (2025). How artificial intelligence differs from humans in peer review. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 83(8), 1040–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.03.015
  16. Kadaifci, C., Isikli, E., & Topcu, Y. I. (2025). Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement. Learned Publishing, 38(1), Article e1637. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1637
  17. Kankanhalli, A. (2024). Peer review in the age of generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00865
  18. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1570
  19. Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE, 11(11), Article e0166387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387
  20. Kulal, A., N, A., Shareena, P., & Dinesh, S. (2025). Unmasking favoritism and bias in academic publishing: An empirical study on editorial practices. Public Integrity, 27(6), 714–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2024.2448875
  21. Lin, J., Song, J., Zhou, Z., Chen, Y., & Shi, X. (2023). Automated scholarly paper review: Concepts, technologies, and challenges. Information Fusion, 98, Article 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101830
  22. Lu, C., Lu, C., Lange, R. T., Yamada, Y., Hu, S., Foerster, J., Ha, D., & Clune, J. (2026). Towards end-to-end automation of AI research. Nature, 651, 914–919. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10265-5
  23. Mann, P. S., Aboy, M., Seah, J. J., Lin, Z., Luo, X., Rodger, D., Zohny, H., Minssen, T., Savulescu, J., & Earp, B. D. (2025). AI and the future of academic peer review. ArXiv, abs/2509.14189. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2509.14189
  24. Meyerson, L. A., Suzzi-Simmons, A., & Simberloff, D. (2025). Quantifying reviewer declines in scientific publishing: Twenty-one years of data from Biological Invasions 2002–2024. Biological Invasions, 27, Article 223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-025-03679-1
  25. Morley, C. P., Prunuske, J., Phillips, J. P., Wendling, A. L., Heidelbaugh, J. J., & Grammer, S. (2025). Reviewer engagement trends at a journal: Cause for concern. PRiMER, 9, Article 59. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2025.831615
  26. Ngo, V. M. (2025). Human–AI collaboration in high-stakes decisions: A meta-analysis of healthcare and public sectors. Applied Economics Letters, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2025.2586160
  27. Ofem, U. J., Owan, V. J., Iyam, M. A., Udeh, M. I., Anake, P. M., & Ovat, S. V. (2025). Students’ perceptions, attitudes and utilisation of ChatGPT for academic dishonesty: Multigroup analyses via PLS‒SEM. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12850-5
  28. Owan, V. J. (2026). “We talk about the risks, what about the gains?” Large language models and learning in mathematics, statistics, and computing. Journal of Education, Innovation and Communication, 8(2), 62–88. https://doi.org/10.34097/jeicom-8-2-5
  29. Owan, V. J., & Asuquo, M. E. (2022). “Publish or perish,” “publish and perish”: The Nigerian experience. In J. A. Undie, J. B. Babalola, B. A. Bello, & I. N. Nwankwo (Eds.), Management of higher educational systems (pp. 986–994). University of Calabar Press. https://philarchive.org/rec/OWAQOP
  30. Owan, V. J., & Ogabor, J. O. (2026). Publish or perish revisited: Persistence, academic labour, and institutional logics in scholarly publishing. Aminu Kano Academic Scholars Association Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(4), 1–24. https://philarchive.org/rec/OWAPOP
  31. Owan, V. J., Abang, K. B., Idika, D. O., Etta, E. O., & Bassey, B. A. (2023). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence tools in educational measurement and assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(8), Article em2307. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13428
  32. Owan, V. J., Chukwu, C. O., Agama, V. U., Owan, T. J., Ogar, J. O., & Etorti, I. J. (2025). Acceptance and use of artificial intelligence for self-directed research learning among postgraduate students in Nigerian public universities. Discover Education, 4(1), Article 329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00770-6
  33. Paliya, N., & Jha, S. S. (2024). Quality indicators for academic journals: What makes a journal trustworthy? IP Indian Journal of Anatomy and Surgery of Head, Neck and Brain, 10(4), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijashnb.2024.019
  34. Regmi, A., & Vaishya, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing: Enhancing editorial efficiency while preserving human expertise. National Board of Examinations Journal of Medical Sciences, 3(10), 1288–1297. https://doi.org/10.61770/NBEJMS.2025.v03.i10.012
  35. Russo, G., Horta Ribeiro, M., Davidson, T. R., Veselovsky, V., & West, R. (2025). The AI review lottery: Widespread AI-assisted peer reviews boost paper scores and acceptance rates. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), Article CSCW486. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757667
  36. Saad, A., Jenko, N., Ariyaratne, S., Birch, N., Iyengar, K. P., Davies, A. M., Vaishya, R., & Botchu, R. (2024). Exploring the potential of ChatGPT in the peer review process: An observational study. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 18(2), Article 102946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2024.102946
  37. Salih, M. H. B., Gul, T., Bukhari, S. S., Liaqat, I., & Majeed, A. (2025). AI-enhanced scholarly communication: Transforming peer review, knowledge dissemination, and academic publishing workflows in the digital era. International Journal of Ethical AI Application, 1(4), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.64229/4qp06e84
  38. Seghier, M. L. (2025). AI-powered peer review needs human supervision. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 23(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-09-2024-0132
  39. Severin, A., & Chataway, J. (2021). Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi-stakeholder perspective on causes and effects. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1392
  40. Sizo, A., Lino, A., Rocha, Á., & Reis, L. P. (2025). Defining quality in peer review reports: A scoping review. Knowledge and Information Systems, 67, 6413–6460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-025-02435-0
  41. Zancanaro, E., Giannopoulos, A., Gimelli, A., & Kresoja, K.-P. (2026). AI as a peer reviewer: A blinded comparative study of LLM-generated and human reviews in a cardiology journal. European Heart Journal - Imaging Methods and Practice, 4(1), Article qyag097. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyag097

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.