FoxCWAlbertAYKVinesTH. Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Res Integr Peer Rev2017; 2: 3. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
2.
ZupancGKH. “It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers” – myths and facts about peer review. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol2024; 210: 1–5.
3.
YagnikVDBhattacharyaSBhattacharyaK, et al.Incentivizing peer reviewers: exploring monetary and nonmonetary rewards. Indian J Community Med2025; 50: 872–873.
4.
LeeJLeeJYooJJ. The role of large language models in the peer-review process: opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors. J Educ Eval Health Prof2025; 22; 4.
5.
MengXYanXZhangK, et al.The application of large language models in medicine: a scoping review. iScience2024; 27: 109713.
6.
SharmaD. Artificial intelligence as an equalizer: how ChatGPT empowers academics in the Global South. Trop Doct2026; 56: 6–8.
7.
PerlisRHChristakisDABresslerNM, et al.Artificial intelligence in peer review. JAMA2025; 334: 1563. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.15827
8.
HuangLWeijiangYWeitaoM, et al.A survey on Hallucination in large language models: principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Trans Inf Syst2025; 43: 1–55.
