Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
What does "peer review" mean in a world where AI can write, edit, and even recommend citations? That’s the bold question behind the newly announced theme for Peer Review Week 2025: "Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era."
This timely and forward-looking theme invites the global scholarly community to examine how artificial intelligence is transforming the peer review process, and what this means for the future of research integrity, editorial responsibility, and scientific trust.
Selected through a two-stage global consultation led by the Peer Review Week Steering Committee, the theme reflects widespread interest in how AI is being integrated into scholarly publishing workflows. From AI-assisted manuscript evaluations to algorithm-generated summaries and reviewer suggestions, the tools are evolving rapidly. But so are the questions around transparency, accountability, and fairness.
At the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), we see this as an important opportunity to reflect on our roles as editors, reviewers, publishers, and researchers in this changing landscape. We encourage our members to stay informed and engaged in the evolving conversation about peer review practices in the AI era.
Areas of Focus That Will Shape the Discussion
ACSE remains committed to amplifying discussions around research integrity and editorial best practices across Asia and beyond. While we are not hosting formal activities during Peer Review Week this year, we strongly encourage our network to follow updates, participate in global events, and explore resources shared by the organizing committee at www.peerreviewweek.net.
As AI continues to reshape scholarly publishing, one thing remains clear: the values that underpin high-quality peer review, rigor, fairness, and trust are more important than ever.
Let us not only respond to these changes but help shape their direction with responsibility and vision.
As China's role in global research continues to expand, questions about visibility, quality, and innovation in its scholarl...
Read more ⟶Dr. Nadia had just received her promotion rejection letter. Her colleagues whispered encouragement, yet she couldn’t shake ...
Read more ⟶Open access was supposed to revolutionize scholarly publishing. Instead, we’re stuck somewhere in between: paywalls are s...
Read more ⟶