Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Maryam Sayab, Roohi Ghosh, Gareth Dyke, and Maria Machado, Co-chairs of the Peer Review Week Committee 2025.

Peer Review Week (PRW) serves as an annual, global moment to celebrate, challenge, and evolve the vital practice of peer review. What began as a modest awareness initiative has grown into a worldwide event uniting voices from all corners of the scholarly communication ecosystem, researchers, editors, publishers, technologists, librarians, and institutions alike.

As co-chairs of Peer Review Week, we are pleased to announce the official theme for Peer Review Week 2025, to be held from 15–19 September 2025:

“Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era”

This year’s theme was chosen through a community-driven, two-stage process. Nearly 30 topic suggestions were submitted by the Peer Review Week Steering Committee. These were then distilled into four thematic categories by internal committee voting, for industry-wide public vote. With over 895 responses from researchers, professionals, and advocates worldwide, “Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era” emerged as the popular choice, underscoring just how urgently the community wants to discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on scholarly evaluation.

bar chart showing responses to suggested themes for PRW 2025
Fig 1. Comparative Voting Results for Peer Review Week 2025 Theme Categories. The chart shows the vote counts and percentages for each of the four final theme options.

A Truly Global Mandate: The World Votes on AI in Peer Review

This year’s theme resonated across the globe, drawing significant engagement from diverse regions. The public vote, which garnered over 894 responses, clearly demonstrated a widespread, international interest in the impact of AI on peer review. Participation was particularly robust from Asia, which constituted the largest share of votes, reflecting the continent’s deep engagement with the topic. As shown in Figure 2, Africa and Europe also showed strong representation, underscoring the universal nature of the challenges and opportunities presented by AI in scholarly evaluation. The Americas, encompassing both North and South, collectively contributed a notable segment of the responses, while Oceania, though smaller in volume, also made its voice heard. This broad geographical engagement truly underscores the universal relevance of rethinking peer review in the AI era and highlights the diverse perspectives contributing to this critical conversation.

pie chart showing percentages of votes from different regions
Figure 2: Distribution of Peer Review Week Theme Votes by Geographical Region. This pie chart presents the percentage and absolute number of votes received from participating continents.

Why This Theme, and Why Now?

As AI systems continue to transform the scholarly publishing landscape, their integration into peer review workflows elicits a mixture of opportunity, uncertainty, and ethical complexity. This area has already been the subject of numerous workshops and events, while a large number of tools have been, and are being, developed.

From manuscript triage and reviewer suggestions to automated quality checks and AI-generated reviews, machine learning is increasingly influencing how peer review is conducted. But as these tools grow more powerful, so do the questions surrounding their responsible use.

By selecting this theme, the community signals a need to pause, reflect, and ask:

  • How can AI improve the efficiency and fairness of reviewer selection and could this alleviate the growing burden on peer reviewers?
  • Can AI improve inclusivity in peer review by helping to reduce bias in the reviewer selection process?
  • How can AI enhance peer review without eroding the human values at its core?
  • What level of transparency and disclosure should be required when AI is involved in reviewing or authoring scholarly content?
  • Are we equipping editors, reviewers, and researchers with the AI literacy needed to navigate this new normal?
  • What guardrails must be in place to ensure fairness, reproducibility, and trust?

“Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era” challenges us not just to adapt, but to lead, by shaping systems and standards that align technological advancement with the integrity of scholarship.

Key Questions and Focal Points

During Peer Review Week 2025, participants from across disciplines and sectors will be exploring this theme through diverse lenses. Anticipated topics include:

  • Ethical Boundaries and Disclosure
    What should authors, editors, and reviewers disclose regarding their use of AI tools? How do we define accountability?
  • AI Literacy and Reviewer Training
    What knowledge and skills do reviewers need to assess AI-generated content or to responsibly use AI tools themselves?
  • Bias, Fairness, and Transparency
    Can AI reduce human bias, or does it risk amplifying it? How do we make the process more auditable?
  • Human vs. Machine Judgment
    What roles and decisions should remain uniquely human, and how do we protect those in a hybrid review environment?
  • New Models of Peer Review
    From open and collaborative review to structured assessments and reproducibility audits, how might AI support new review models?

These questions are no longer hypothetical. They’re emerging daily across editorial boards, institutional policies, start-up ventures, and research workflows. We hope that PRW 2025 will provide an open, collaborative platform to explore these questions with depth, curiosity, and a shared commitment to responsible innovation.

A Community-Driven Conversation

Peer Review Week is not a single event, it’s a global, decentralized celebration powered by the community. Whether you’re new to the discussion or a longtime peer review advocate, there are many ways to get involved:

  • Host a panel or webinar—virtual, hybrid, or in-person
  • Publish a blog post, commentary, or case study on this year’s theme
  • Share insights on social media using hashtags #PeerReviewWeek and #PRW2025
  • Engage your community in training, dialogue, or resource-building activities
  • Submit your event or contribution via our official website

PRW thrives because of your voice, your curiosity, and your commitment to safeguarding the future of scholarly communication.

Looking Ahead/Get Involved

This year’s theme, chosen by the community and shaped by more than 895 votes, is a timely call to action. “Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era” is not just about reacting to change; it’s about proactively shaping the future of peer review, together.

Let’s make Peer Review Week 2025 a milestone in that journey, one grounded in reflection, innovation, and collective responsibility.

To learn more and get involved, visit our newly revamped home at  www.peerreviewweek.net

 

 

Maryam Sayab

Maryam Sayab is the Director of Communications at the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) and Co-Chair of Peer Review Week. With a background rooted in research integrity and publication ethics, she actively works to advance regional conversations around responsible peer review, transparent editorial practices, and inclusive open science. Maryam is dedicated to building bridges between global publishing standards and the practical realities faced by researchers and editors, especially across Asia and the Arab world. She also supports initiatives that strengthen community-driven collaboration, ethical scholarship, and the sustainable development of research ecosystems.

Roohi Ghosh

Roohi Ghosh

Roohi Ghosh is the ambassador for researcher success at Cactus Communications (CACTUS). She is passionate about advocating for researchers and amplifying their voices on a global stage.

Gareth Dyke

Dr. Gareth Dyke is an accomplished researcher, author, and journal manager with over 380 peer-reviewed publications. With extensive experience bridging academia and publishing, he has worked with Charlesworth, TopEdit, Edanz, and Springer Nature. Currently, he serves as Academic Director at ReviewerCredits and co-founder of Sci-Train. Holding a PhD from the University of Bristol, he has held faculty positions at University College Dublin and the University of Southampton. Gareth is also an experienced educator, delivering global researcher training sessions and collaborating with institutions across Europe and Asia.

Maria Machado

Dr. Maria Machado is a physiologist turned consultant. She has explored different formats of peer review and attempts to bridge the gap between researchers, the academic publishing industry, and society at large. Maria has broad experience in helping scientists transmit the core message uncovered from their data and disseminate new knowledge quickly. She has worked with Bio-Protocol, Editage, and Enago to suggest revisions before Reviewer 2 demands them. Maria also writes blogs, teaches courses, and has recently become the Editor for Scientia, which enables researchers worldwide to share their work with a wider audience.

Discussion

4 Thoughts on "Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era: Announcing the Theme for Peer Review Week 2025"

I’m so incredibly excited to see the official Peer Review Week 2025 theme, now live on Scholarly Kitchen!

Our committee has poured so much thought into this, and I genuinely believe it’s one of the most critical and fascinating topics facing scholarly communication right now. This theme isn’t just timely; it’s essential for all of us, editors, reviewers, researchers, and publishers, as we explore how AI can best serve the integrity and efficiency of peer review, navigating both its huge potential and its complexities.

We’re looking forward to hearing your insights, questions, and contributions. Let’s make Peer Review Week 2025 a truly collaborative and groundbreaking discussion.

A huge thank you to the Scholarly Kitchen team for helping us share this crucial announcement on time; Jump into the comments here and let the conversations begin!

thanks. if the focus is on peer review and AI, strongly encourage recognition that the science that is being reviewed is changing and increasingly using AI/ML for research and impactful results (even for generating new science and hypotheses and workflows), on all sorts of data (rarely text). A larger (imho) challenge thus beyond how LLM’s should be used in review and writing is actually what and how to review the use (and misuse) of AI/ML in research, and how publishers and researchers should build trust in the science, ensure data quality and transparency in that use, and report about their use of AI/ML in research. This is the elephant in the room. Much more harm may come from bad AI/ML science (and harmful results even with good intentions) than from LLM use/misuse in writing a review or publisher workflows. Strongly encourage to focus on this challenge as well as on use of LLMs in writing/review/workflows. A start is here: 10.22541/essoar.168132856.66485758/v1, which includes specific recommendations for publishers and funders.

Thanks, Brooks, this is such an important point. As you note, the real shift is in the science itself, with AI/ML reshaping how research is done and what’s being reviewed. Evaluating these methods, ensuring transparency, and building trust in AI-driven results must be core to peer review. Totally agree this deserves as much focus as LLM use in writing and editorial workflows. Appreciate the reference, very timely and relevant.

A timely and much-needed theme. At JAMS, we’re exploring how AI can support editorial teams—never replace them. Trust, transparency, and smarter workflows must go hand in hand. Looking forward to the conversations this Peer Review Week will spark!

Leave a Comment