Designing AI-Augmented Peer Review / Joshua S. Gans.

Format:

Book

Author/Creator:

Gans, Joshua S.

Contributor:

National Bureau of Economic Research.

Series:

Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) no. w35688.

NBER working paper series no. w35688

Language:

English

Physical Description:

1 online resource: illustrations (black and white);

Place of Publication:

Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2026.

Summary:

AI-generated assessments of manuscripts could improve the quality of peer review, but sharing them with reviewers might decrease the information that editors possess about the manuscript. Human peer reviews add value because reviewers add what the AI assessment reveals. When both reviewers see the same assessment and make similar errors, they can replicate each other's mistakes, coincidentally investigate related areas, and share the same blind spots. If AI assessment improves the quality of reviewers' work while they investigate the manuscript, giving the report to only one reviewer can better combine AI assistance with independent, human investigation. If some reviewers already use AI-generated assessments on their own, changing the journal policy to allow sharing the assessment can improve peer review if the change takes some of the burden of investigation off private tools that make similar errors, though giving the assessment to only one reviewer may still outperform giving it to both or neither. Even a report delivered after the reviews are submitted can still shift what reviewers investigate if they know in advance which issues it will check. Journal policy will depend on the AI's effects on reviewer effort and the questions they investigate, whether reviewers are willing and able to comply with the policy, the monitoring costs, and the journal's ability to protect the confidentiality of reviewer identities and emails. Journals can evaluate competing policies without knowing the true quality of the manuscripts they review by randomly varying who receives the assessment and then comparing reviewer disagreement across different levels of report sharing.

Notes:

August 2026.

Print version record