, therefore, not correct in every situation.
Why is this fortunate?
Because it means that we humans are not entirely replaceable!
Peer reviewers themselves could never be replaced by machines: humans are needed to review language competence, and because machines are only as good as the people who programme them, they could never keep ahead of scientific research. Humans are therefore needed to evaluate and provide feedback on manuscripts, as well as to feed information to computers to help them improve. Likewise, administrators handling research manuscripts will continue to be necessary for dealing with the unexpected: answering questions and managing projects, etc.
So, while computers may play an increasingly useful role in editorial and peer review processes, there are some things that must, for the foreseeable future at least, remain “old fashioned”. Arguably, the peer review process could be improved, and perhaps AI will speed it up somewhat and help it to evolve. However, until computers develop a true “intelligence”, only humans can react to situations which are out of the ordinary, and confirm whether research is innovative and of a high standard.
Additional help and support
Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo