Fuck AI

LLMs are not peers. It should have no part in the peer review process.

You could make the argument that it's just a tool that real peer reviewers use to help with the process, but if you do, you cant get mad that authors are shadow-prompting for a better chance it'll be seen by a human.

Authors already consciously write their papers in ways that are likely to be approved by their peers, (using professional language, good data, and a standard structure) if the conditions for what makes a good paper changes, you can't blame authors for adjusting to the new norms.

Either ban AI reviews entirely, or let authors try to game the system. You can't have both.

This hints at a problem of academia being in favour of 'lots of expensive words good'. They start training us for this at school - more often than not churning out a longer and more complex text is rewarded over writing succinctly and in language that is easily understandable to all.

Yes, I understand using accurate terminology is a thing, and that this terminology can get extensive and complex. But it doesn't account for all of the word salad produced because we expect academic texts to sound a certain way. And that's how we get desperate people using robots to keep up with the silly demand for overcomplicated word salad and then other desperate people using robots to work their way through the aforementioned word salad.