Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?

Health economist Jason Semprini was enthusiastic about his research on policies requiring elementary school students to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine. Despite HPV being the primary cause of cervical cancer, Semprini discovered that mandates did not significantly reduce the overall cervical cancer rate in a population.

Intriguingly, he posited that the mandate might inadvertently encourage some individuals to seek alternative means to avoid the vaccine. After drafting the study, Semprini submitted it to a journal, which then subjected it to peer review—a traditional method in which other researchers evaluate the study's credibility and decide whether it should be published.

Typically, the reviewer remains anonymous and performs the task pro bono. However, in Semprini's case, the reviewer misinterpreted the study's objective. The reviewer believed Semprini was questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in preventing cervical cancer, rather than examining the effectiveness of a policy aimed at boosting vaccination rates.

Semprini, a health economist at Des Moines University, clarified the distinction between the two concepts, emphasizing the significant difference between the two.