Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.
A study on policies requiring elementary school students to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has revealed an unexpected finding. According to Jason Semprini, a health economist at Des Moines University, mandates do not significantly reduce the overall rate of cervical cancer in a population. This counterintuitive result led Semprini to submit his research to a journal for peer review, a standard process in which other researchers assess the validity of the study and recommend whether it should be published.
Unfortunately, the reviewer for Semprini's manuscript did not share his enthusiasm. The misunderstanding may have arisen because the reviewer misinterpreted the study’s main message. Semprini was not questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in preventing cervical cancer, but rather the effectiveness of a policy aimed at increasing vaccination rates.
Written by urgent.news from Ars Technica Science's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — it may contain errors, so check the original before relying on it.
Also reported by 1 other outlet
- Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era? arstechnica.com