Journals and peer review
Journal AI policies, disclosure rules, refereeing and replication.
Academic research is far behind the AI frontier, from finance to mathematics
A paper about a model is out of date before it clears review. In mathematics, the newest results come from a model no academic can run.
Researchers in China, Japan and Korea run whole papers through coding agents and post how
Their own forums and blogs describe pipelines of 30 agents, a seven-week paper with 108 experiment runs, and an eight-hour draft. Every account keeps the checking for a person.
Researchers are using AI against the rules, because being left behind is worse
At a major 2026 conference, more than one in five reviewers who were told not to use an LLM used one anyway. The fear driving that is rational.
Stock Claude Code and Codex wrote 117 papers unaided, and none cleared a top venue's bar
With only a light scaffold, Claude Code matched the average human ICLR 2025 submission on manuscript review. Scores fell once reviewers opened the code behind each paper.
A paper-writing pipeline for Claude Code went from 6,400 GitHub stars to 51,000 in five months
academic-research-skills runs 32 agents across ten stages with two integrity gates. Its builder says the checks caught 15 fabricated citations in one real paper.
In 912 AI-written economics papers, the ideas trail human work far more than the execution
Against 41 papers from the AER and AEJ: Economic Policy, a study puts 71% of the quality gap on the research idea and finds no significant gap on robustness.
Review of Finance bans hidden prompts in manuscripts and sets a one-year penalty
The journal's LLM policy also requires authors to disclose any AI use in the cover letter and in the manuscript, and limits referees to supportive use.