Can AI help authors prepare better risk science manuscripts?

Scientists, publishers, and journal editors are wondering how, whether, and to what extent artificial intelligence (AI) tools might soon help to advance the rigor, efficiency, and value of scientific peer review. Will AI provide timely, useful feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts while avoiding the biases and inconsistencies of human reviewers? Or might it instead generate low‐quality verbiage, add noise and errors, reinforce flawed reasoning, and erode trust in the review process? This perspective reports on evaluations of two experimental AI systems: (i) a “Screener” available at http://screener.riskanalysis.cloud/ that gives authors feedback on whether a draft paper (or abstract, proposal, etc.) appears to be a fit for the journal Risk Analysis, based on the guidance to authors provided by the journal (https://www.sra.org/journal/what‐makes‐a‐good‐risk‐analysis‐article/); and (ii) a more ambitious “Reviewer” (http://aia1.moirai‐solutions.com/) that gives substantive technical feedback and recommends how to improve the clarity of methodology and the interpretation of results. The evaluations were conducted by a convenience sample of Risk Analysis Area Editors (AEs) and authors, including two authors of manuscripts in progress and four authors of papers that had already been published. The Screener was generally rated as useful. It has been deployed at Risk Analysis since January of 2025. On the other hand, the Reviewer had mixed ratings, ranging from strongly positive to strongly negative. This perspective describes both the lessons learned and potential next steps in making AI tools useful to authors prior to peer review by human experts.

• Publication year

  2025

• Venue

  Risk Analysis

• Publication date

  2025-06-06

• Fields of study

  Medicine, Computer Science

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1111/risa.70055PMID 40480952
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• AI is transforming peer review — and many scientists are worried

  2025cited by this paper
• Causal Inference and the People's Health

  2025cited by this paper
• Accelerating Editorial Processes in Scientific Journals: Leveraging AI for Rapid Manuscript Review

  2024cited by this paper
• Research gaps and priorities for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA)

  2024cited by this paper
• Use of artificial intelligence and the future of peer review

  2024cited by this paper
• Population attributable fraction of gas cooking and childhood asthma: What was missed?

  2024cited by this paper
• Knowledge Graphs as Context Sources for LLM-Based Explanations of Learning Recommendations

  2024cited by this paper
• The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science

  2024cited by this paper
• Hallucinations in LLMs: Understanding and Addressing Challenges

  2024cited by this paper
• Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis

  2023cited by this paper
• An AI assistant to help review and improve causal reasoning in epidemiological documents

  2023influential reference
• Understanding uncertainty shocks and the role of black swans

  2022cited by this paper
• Population Attributable Fraction of Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma in the United States

  2022influential reference
• Editorial: Where have all the reviewers gone?: Is the peer review concept in crisis?

  2022cited by this paper
• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

  2019cited by this paper
• Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands

  2019cited by this paper
• OF THE UNITED STATES

  2015cited by this paper
• Beware the creeping cracks of bias

  2012cited by this paper
• Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

  2007influential reference
• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

  2005cited by this paper
• Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

  1998cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.