Peer reviewing and editing research
Researchers may be peer reviewers of others’ research prior to publication and may also be editors of scholarly journals, or may be approached to assess PhD theses.
Responsible use
- As an editor, do disclose to authors any use of genAI tools in detecting copyright or plagiarism issues in manuscripts.
- Do check tool terms and conditions and licences concerning data retention.
Cautions
- Don’t use genAI in peer review of others’ research.
- Don’t use genAI to mark theses.
- Never upload grant applications, ethics applications, manuscripts or theses into genAI.
Case examples
Click on the plus icons below to explore exemplar and cautionary hypothetical scenarios for peer reviewing and editing in research.
Exemplar - Case example 1
Hamza is an editor of a scholarly journal. His publisher has recently introduced a genAI tool to assist with identifying copyright breaches in submitted manuscripts. This is a bespoke, closed system tool endorsed by the publisher with strict terms of use. Hamza identifies a newly submitted manuscript as a suitable topic for his journal. He runs the manuscript through the genAI detector to determine whether there are any copyright concerns and whether to proceed to peer review.
Hamza is compliant with Deakin’s guidelines to support the use of generative AI for researchers because the tool is being used ethically. It is a closed system, it does not retain the content uploaded and has strict terms of use agreed to by his publisher and therefore does not breach copyright, confidentiality or privacy. Hamza ensures that he declares his use of the genAI tool to the manuscript authors.
Cautionary - Case example 2
Michaela has recently been asked to provide a peer review of a manuscript in an area closely related to her PhD. She is short on time, and doesn’t want to delay the research paper with a late review. Michaela uploads the manuscript to a genAI tool and prompts it to use a well-known appraisal tool. She uses the output as the starting point for her peer review comments.
Michaela is in breach of Deakin’s guidelines to support the use of generative AI for researchers because she has breached confidentiality in sharing the manuscript with the AI tool. The guidelines explicitly state that genAI must not be used in any peer review or thesis examination.