Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Accurate or Artificial?
0
Zitationen
1
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
Peer review stands as the foundation of academic publishing, shaping the quality and credibility of scholarly work. However, concerns remain about its consistency and reliability. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) presents a transformative opportunity in this regard. This study examines the quality of peer review feedback generated by a general AI tool, ChatGPT, and a specialized one, SCiNiTO, compared to human reviewers. Four research articles, each previously reviewed by human experts with different conclusions, were uploaded to the selected LLMs for evaluation. The review reports of the four research articles were analyzed for the final decision reached and the score of certain quality dimensions based on a developed rubric. The analysis showed that both AI tools gave almost similar decisions, but they were mostly different from the decisions given by human reviewers. In addition, AI tools showed superior quality performance. Eventually, the study findings uncover AI's promise and possible implications toward enhancing academic evaluation and communication.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.700 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.605 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 8.133 Zit.
BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining
2019 · 6.873 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.