Attitudes and perceptions towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in medical journal peer review: A protocol for a large-scale, international cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are advanced conversational programmes capable of performing tasks such as identifying methodological flaws, verifying references, and improving language clarity in manuscripts. Their use in peer review has the potential to enhance efficiency, reduce reviewer workload, and address inconsistencies in review quality. However, concerns remain regarding their reliability, ethical implications, and transparency in decision-making, and little is known about how peer reviewers perceive these tools. Objectives: To assess peer reviewers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the use of AI chatbots in the peer review process, including their familiarity with AI, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical considerations, and expectations for future roles. Methods: An international cross-sectional survey will be conducted among academic peer reviewers. The survey will collect data on participants’ prior experience with AI, perceptions of the utility of chatbots in supporting peer review, concerns related to ethics and transparency, and anticipated future applications. Results: This study will report descriptive and comparative analyses of reviewers’ responses, highlighting patterns in attitudes and perceptions by demographic and professional characteristics. Conclusions: The findings may offer evidence to inform the development of future policies and best practices for the ethical and effective integration of AI chatbots in peer review, with the goal of improving review quality while addressing potential risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.129 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".