# How do authors want to use AI for review? A survey to assess the perception of scientists who received both AI and human reviews of their manuscripts

## TL;DR

Scientists prefer using AI to check their work before submission, not as a replacement for human reviewers.

## Contribution

The study introduces an 'author-centric' model where AI supports manuscript improvement before peer review.

## Key findings

- Researchers prefer AI as a self-checking tool before submitting manuscripts.
- AI is not seen as a replacement for human peer review.
- The author-centric model is encouraged for improving manuscripts pre-review.

## Abstract

A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers.

A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers.