Q: If a peer reviewer used AI to summarize my paper, will it still be a fair review?
Answer: This is an important concern. AI tools are beneficial to both researchers and reviewers in many ways. However, while some reviewers may use AI tools to aid their reading or summarize the manuscript, peer review is still meant to be a careful evaluation of your work. It should only be used as an aid and not as a substitute for human judgement. As an author, focus on presenting your research clearly, and remember that you can reach out to editors if you feel a review did not engage with your work adequately. In addition to the risk of oversimplification or missing out on important details, there are other concerns that include maintaining the confidentiality of your work in an AI world. If you are concerned about the fairness of your review, bring this up politely with the editor.
If a peer reviewer uses AI only to summarize your paper — for example, to get a quick overview before reading it in depth — it can still be a fair review as long as the reviewer also engages directly with your original work. AI summaries can help reviewers save time or identify key themes, but they are not always accurate and can miss nuances, methods, or critical arguments.
A fair review requires human judgment, careful reading, and evaluation of the paper’s originality, rigor, and contribution — things AI cannot do reliably. So, if the reviewer relies entirely on an AI-generated summary without reading your paper themselves, the review would not be fair. However, if AI is used only as a tool to support understanding (not to replace it), the fairness of the review remains intact.
