AI Article Reviews Dominate Human Peer Reviews at Their Best: Evidence and Policy Choices

Abstract

We show that AI-generated article reviews are now better, by every measure we could construct, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts and judged to be of unusually high quality by journal editors and authors. We then discuss how this result may inform journal policy choices, with concerning downsides as well as potential paths to increase publication speed and quality.

How to cite it

Built from the details listed on this page. Check them against the paper before you submit.

King, G., & Worthington, S. (2026). AI Article Reviews Dominate Human Peer Reviews at Their Best: Evidence and Policy Choices. Working paper, Harvard University. https://gking.harvard.edu/files/peerless.pdf

King, Gary, et al. "AI Article Reviews Dominate Human Peer Reviews at Their Best: Evidence and Policy Choices." Working paper, Harvard University, 2026, https://gking.harvard.edu/files/peerless.pdf.

@article{king2026ai,
  title = {AI Article Reviews Dominate Human Peer Reviews at Their Best: Evidence and Policy Choices},
  author = {Gary King and Steven Worthington},
  journal = {Working paper, Harvard University},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://gking.harvard.edu/files/peerless.pdf},
}

What it is

Shows that AI-generated article reviews scored better, by every measure the authors constructed, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts judged to be of unusually high quality, and discusses implications for journal policy. Working paper.

Topics