An editor of a medical scientific journal shared interesting statistics: AI reviews scientific articles, and finds 3 times more errors in them (yes, it often goes into the details and chokes, but that's exactly the job of a peer reviewer). At the same time, the review takes 14 minutes instead of 8.5 hours per person. Reviewing a medical (and any other scientific) article without AI is simply harmful and useless. And here is an example of the same phenomenon, but in economics. But academics and journal editors will continue to resist because they fear losing their sense of self-worth.

An editor of a medical scientific journal shared interesting statistics: AI reviews scientific articles, and finds 3 times more errors in them (yes, it often goes into the details and chokes, but that's exactly the job of a peer reviewer). At the same time, the review takes 14 minutes instead of 8.5 hours per person. Reviewing a medical (and any other scientific) article without AI is simply harmful and useless. And here is an example of the same phenomenon, but in economics. But academics and journal editors will continue to resist because they fear losing their sense of self-worth.