- Correspondence
- Published:
External peer review constitutes a foundational component of science and has been central to the evolution of merit-based research since the eighteenth century. However, time, which is the most essential element that scientists need to complete a thorough and fair review, has become scarce. A manuscript or grant application reviewer must evaluate large amounts of complex data while simultaneously dealing with their own research and grants, clinical duties, teaching, mentoring and administrative responsibilities. As reviewers’ workloads have increased, the basic structure of the peer review process has remained largely unchanged: three scientists evaluate a manuscript or a grant application, while editorial boards and funding agencies make decisions based mainly on the experts’ assessments.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a multipurpose tool for researchers, and it can perform many tasks of peer reviewers. There is an opportunity here to refocus and strengthen the process of peer review, with AI as a bounded, non-voting, secure, auditable tool — not replacing scientists, but serving as an additional ‘Reviewer 4’.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Subjects
References
-
Bendiscioli, S. EMBO Rep. 20, e49472 https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949472 (2019).
-
Sayers, E. W. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 54, D20–D27 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaf1060 (2026).
-
Tropini, C. et al. mBio 14, e0109123 https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01091-23 (2023).
-
Kwon, D. Nature 641, 290–291 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01180-2 (2025).
-
Roustan, D. & Bastardot, F. T. Interact. J. Med. Res. 14, e59823 https://doi.org/10.2196/59823 (2025).
-
Mugaanyi, J., Cai, L., Cheng, S., Lu, C. & Huang, J. J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e52935 https://doi.org/10.2196/52935 (2024).
-
Aczel, B. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2401232121 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401232121 (2025).
-
Schroter, S. et al. J. R. Soc. Med. 101, 507–514 https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062 (2008).
-
Marian, A. J. J. Cardiovasc. Aging https://doi.org/10.20517/jca.2023.3 (2023).
-
Bianchi, F., Queen, O., Thakkar, N., Sun, E. & Zou, J. Nat. Biotechnol. 44, 11–14 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02963-8 (2026).
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Drosatos, K., Tsirigos, A. Giving AI a seat at the peer review table. Nat Biotechnol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-026-03369-w
-
Published:
-
Version of record:
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-026-03369-w
