Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
AI and Editorial Workflows: Lessons from This Year - Reflections from the University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
The year 2025 has marked an undeniable turning point in the intersection of artificial intelligence and scholarly publishing. What was once considered an assistive technology has now become a central, and sometimes contested, component of editorial ecosystems. Across Asia and beyond, editors, reviewers, authors, and publishers have grappled with the promise and pitfalls of AI tools in ways that have fundamentally reshaped editorial workflows, expectations, and standards. Reflecting on this transformation reveals both the opportunities AI has opened and the cautions that institutions must adopt to protect the integrity of scholarship.
At the University of Central Punjab (UCP), the adoption of comprehensive AI Standards and Guidelines has offered a structured framework to assess how AI should be incorporated ethically and responsibly, a framework that mirrors many of the challenges global editorial teams faced this year. The UCP emphasis on transparency, independent thinking, and academic integrity resonates strongly with the scholarly publishing landscape of 2025, especially as editorial boards increasingly confront manuscripts influenced, sometimes subtly, sometimes extensively, by generative AI.
AI as a Partner, Not a Replacement
One of the clearest lessons of 2025 is that AI can enhance editorial workflows, but it cannot replace human judgment. Editorial work relies on discernment, contextual evaluation, ethical reasoning, and disciplinary knowledge. This year, editors reported a growing influx of manuscripts that were either partially drafted with AI or had undergone AI-based refinement without disclosure. While AI tools excelled at improving grammar, structure, or formatting, they struggled with conceptual clarity, disciplinary nuance, and accuracy.
The UCP guidelines reinforce a similar principle: AI-generated content must never be used as a primary source, and all AI outputs require verification for accuracy. This resonates strongly with editorial experiences. Many peer reviewers noted that AI-polished articles often displayed “surface fluency” but lacked analytical depth, coherence, or methodological rigor. Manuscripts read smoothly yet failed to demonstrate genuine expertise, an issue that required heightened editorial scrutiny.
This year taught editors that AI is best positioned as an assistive partner in workflows, supporting proofreading, helping with initial screening, or summarizing, but not replacing the intellectual processes that underpin scholarly judgment.
Transparency Became the New Norm
One of the most transformative shifts in 2025 was the widespread adoption of AI disclosure policies. Journals, societies, and universities now expect authors to clearly declare if, how, and where AI tools were used. This expectation aligns with the UCP requirement for transparent, explicit communication around AI use by faculty and students.
The rationale is simple: undisclosed AI use undermines accountability.
Editorial workflows are increasingly required:
- Statements of AI assistance
- Prompts used in drafting
- Clarification of which sections were human-generated
- Verification that no data or references were fabricated
As generative AI is incapable of guaranteeing factual accuracy, editors learned that transparency is essential for protecting both research integrity and public trust. Several journals reported retractions linked to AI-generated errors or hallucinated references. This year underscored that without transparent disclosure, it becomes nearly impossible to assess the authenticity of scholarly contributions.
Evolving Peer Review Expectations
Peer review underwent significant adaptation in 2025. Reviewers found themselves needing new skills, not only to evaluate research quality but also to detect patterns indicative of excessive or inappropriate AI use. Many journals introduced reviewer guidance on how to assess AI-generated text, fake citations, and inconsistent writing styles.
The UCP guideline that faculty “should not rely solely on AI detection software” and must instead use holistic judgment echoes this trend. Detection tools remain inconsistent and prone to false positives. Instead, reviewers increasingly relied on scholarly intuition: Does the argument flow logically? Does the writing match the author’s prior style? Are citations verifiable?
Editors learned that human oversight remains irreplaceable. Peer review processes also benefited from AI: structured review templates, automated reference checking, and initial similarity screening, yet reviewers repeatedly emphasized that AI's contributions must stay within clear ethical boundaries.
Safeguarding Integrity in the Age of Automation
The rapid rise of generative AI has also surfaced new integrity challenges. Editorial boards faced cases of:
- Fabricated datasets
- AI-generated images
- Synthetic survey results
- Manipulated figures
- Untraceable references
The UCP policy explicitly prohibits such uses in academic and research work, and these restrictions proved equally vital in scholarly publishing. Some journals implemented mandatory data audits, increased requirements for raw data deposition, and cross-checking of methodological transparency. This year highlighted the importance of editorial vigilance. AI tools can assist in identifying inconsistencies, but the final responsibility rests with human experts. Editorial workflows must now include an additional layer of ethical reflection, ensuring that efficiency does not compromise authenticity.
Enhanced Efficiency Through Ethical AI Integration
A positive outcome of 2025 has been the significant improvement in workflow efficiency. Editorial offices, especially in resource-limited settings, found enormous value in AI-assisted administrative tasks:
- Drafting decision letters
- Formatting references
- Preliminary screening
- Communication with authors
- Managing revisions
These align with UCP’s guidelines encouraging ethical AI use to enhance efficiency while maintaining human oversight. AI helped reduce reviewer fatigue, enabled faster triaging of manuscripts, and supported journals in managing increasing submission volumes. The key lesson: efficiency gains are sustainable only when paired with transparency, verification, and clear boundaries around where human authority must remain central.
Equity and Global South Visibility: A Lingering Concern
While AI enhanced efficiency, it also raised new concerns regarding equity. Many Global South researchers lack access to premium AI tools, raising fears of widening quality gaps in submissions. Similarly, editorial teams from developing regions expressed concern that AI-driven platforms used for workflow automation may embed biases inherited from Western-trained datasets.
The UCP document emphasizes that AI use must ensure equity and fairness across users, a principle that should extend to global publishing systems. This year reminded us that if AI tools are not democratized, disparities in scholarly visibility may deepen.
A Roadmap for the Future
The experience of 2025 suggests several future pathways for scholarly publishing:
-
a. Strengthening AI literacy among editors and reviewersTraining in critical evaluation of AI-generated content is now essential.
-
b. Consolidating clear AI disclosure and citation normsThe UCP model for AI citation and usage transparency offers a useful template for journals.
-
c. Maintaining human-centered editorial decision-makingAutomation should support—not replace—scholarly judgment.
-
d. Ensuring equitable access to AI toolsJournals must advocate for fair access or provide institutional alternatives.
-
e. Building cross-regional collaborationsAsia’s editorial community is uniquely positioned to lead conversations around ethical AI.
Conclusion
The past year demonstrated that AI’s integration into editorial workflows is not simply a technological shift; it is a philosophical and ethical transformation. The lessons of 2025 affirm that integrity, transparency, and critical human oversight remain the foundations of scholarly publishing. AI can accelerate workflows, support editorial teams, and expand capacity, but only when embedded within clear ethical structures such as those outlined in the UCP AI Standards and Guidelines.
As we move into 2026, the challenge and the opportunity lie in harmonizing technological innovation with the enduring values that define scholarship. Editorial work is, at its core, a human endeavor, and AI’s role must be that of an informed, transparent, and well-regulated partner. The experiences of this year offer a valuable roadmap for shaping an equitable, trustworthy, and future-ready scholarly publishing ecosystem.
Keywords
AI in Editorial Workflows AI Disclosure Policies Research Integrity Peer Review Generative AI Global South Publishing UCP AI Standards Automation Ethics Academic Transparency Scholarly Publishing
Dr. Dilawar Hussain is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. He completed his Ph.D. in Zoology at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, where he specialized in fish nutrition and physiology. His research interests span biological sciences, including zoology, analytical chemistry, and aquatic science. Dr. Hussain has contributed to the scientific community through 24 peer-reviewed research articles and 9 conference abstracts.
View All Posts by Dilawar HussainDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
