{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB","short_pith_number":"pith:BKZWA7NR","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"0ab3607db1c308d4a59beee56cc2ca5056343d65e3b8605868a579ef37dc88a4","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2509.14189","version":4},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"AI and the Future of Academic Peer Review","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"Brian D. Earp, Daniel Rodger, Hazem Zohny, Joel Jiehao Seah, Julian Savulescu, Mateo Aboy, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Timo Minssen, Xufei Luo, Zhicheng Lin","submitted_at":"2025-09-17T17:27:12Z","abstract_excerpt":"Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden concentrated on a small minority of scholars, inconsistent quality and low inter-reviewer agreement, and systematic biases by gender, language, and institutional prestige. Decades of human-centered reforms have yielded only marginal improvements. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs), is being piloted across the peer-review pi"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2509.14189","kind":"arxiv","version":4},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CY","submitted_at":"2025-09-17T17:27:12Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"57247c6fa91566af3772925608925dd1f595f12e9877e3a598df706322865420","abstract_canon_sha256":"972ae3f4af7211986c1f819832d1bb6c973f1b790cbe622ee1816f7aede38f61"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.794240Z","signature_b64":"YGrpoB14ay6B/j7RBCyADfC/y3iH8micb50HdJASRSv8RJqG6Mvr+msMxuh2HgHOMHSHO8htTPpYzA/nJgVsDQ==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"0ab3607db1c308d4a59beee56cc2ca5056343d65e3b8605868a579ef37dc88a4","last_reissued_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793892Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793892Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"AI and the Future of Academic Peer Review","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"Brian D. Earp, Daniel Rodger, Hazem Zohny, Joel Jiehao Seah, Julian Savulescu, Mateo Aboy, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Timo Minssen, Xufei Luo, Zhicheng Lin","submitted_at":"2025-09-17T17:27:12Z","abstract_excerpt":"Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden concentrated on a small minority of scholars, inconsistent quality and low inter-reviewer agreement, and systematic biases by gender, language, and institutional prestige. Decades of human-centered reforms have yielded only marginal improvements. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs), is being piloted across the peer-review pi"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2509.14189","kind":"arxiv","version":4},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2509.14189/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2509.14189","created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2509.14189v4","created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2509.14189","created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"BKZWA7NRYMEN","created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"BKZWA7NRYMENJJM3","created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"BKZWA7NR","created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":2,"internal_anchor_count":2,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.03248","citing_title":"Investigating Novice Researchers' Perceptions of Research Privacy Within LLM-Assisted Workflows","ref_index":62,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.23593","citing_title":"When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?","ref_index":91,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB","json":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/BKZWA7NR"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/BKZWA7NR","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2509.14189&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/BKZWA7NRYMENJJM353SWZQWKKB/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00","updated_at":"2026-06-23T02:13:16.793948+00:00"}