ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Navigating the use of artificial intelligence in the peer review process: Cautionary pearls from the editorial board.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review remains a cornerstone of academic publishing, underpinning the integrity and credibility of the scientific literature. High-quality peer review is both a human art and a learned skill, requiring an understanding of study design, critical appraisal and subject-specific expertise. However, the rapid expansion of scientific publishing has placed increasing strain on the peer review ecosystem, contributing to reviewer fatigue, delays, and variability in review quality. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer potential opportunities to enhance the efficiency and consistency of peer review, but their integration into editorial workflows requires careful consideration. In this editorial, we explore the evolving role of peer review, the challenges facing the current ecosystem, and the potential - yet constrained - role of AI, from the perspective of the Editorial Board of Neurosurgical Review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635844What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.