Use cases of generative artificial intelligence in research staff’s peer reviewing

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can support peer reviewing – applications useful to organise content and develop ideas in a conscious way.

The University of Bologna encourages a responsible and conscious use of these tools.

GenAI should enhance critical thinking and personal creativity without replacing them.

The following examples of use cases cover peer reviewing by presenting some of the most widespread applications.

Peer reviewing scientific articles

- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It does not require citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to judge overall consistency. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI to check for overall consistency is strongly discouraged. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement; GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation.
It is recommended that you only use GenAI to identify highlights and/or summarise the structure of the article.
- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It does not require citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to judge overall consistency. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement; GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation.
It is recommended that you only use GenAI to identify highlights or summarise the structure of the article.
- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It requires citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to judge clarity and the scientific argument. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI to generate suggestions is strongly discouraged. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement; GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation.
It is recommended that you only use GenAI to identify highlights and/or summarise the structure of the article.
- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It requires citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to judge the article as a whole. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged because GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation. The researcher must be responsible for the final judgement. Use GenAI only as a research or summary tool, and not to generate your evaluation.

Peer reviewing research projects

- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It requires citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to judge project feasibility. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged because GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation. A human reviewer must be responsible for the final judgement. Using GenAI is not recommended from a technological viewpoint either, because it is unlikely that GenAI has the necessary forecasting ability for this task.
- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It does not require citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to judge overall consistency. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged because GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation. The researcher must be responsible for the final judgement.
GenAI should only be used to identify gross inconsistencies or shortcomings. Even in that case, however, it is recommended that you seek the opinion of human experts for this kind of evaluation.

Checking originality

- It does not comply with the University Policy principles.
- It does not require citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged. It should not be left to GenAI to make this comparison. The researcher is responsible for the final judgement.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Using GenAI is strongly discouraged because GenAI can significantly influence your evaluation. The researcher must be responsible for the final judgement. Using GenAI is not appropriate from a technological viewpoint either, because it may generate hallucinations.
It is recommended that you use dedicated text analysis tools rather than GenAI.
- It complies with the University Policy principles.
- It does not require citing the use of GenAI.
Key points of attention

Risk that the generated output is inaccurate and irrelevant.

Suggestions and actions to complete

Check that the results found are actually similar.
Always check the output again for accuracy and relevance.

Submit GenAI Feedback

Published
Share your feedback on GenAI use cases.

Use cases of generative artificial intelligence in research staff’s peer reviewing

Peer reviewing scientific articles

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Peer reviewing research projects

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Checking originality

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Key points of attention

Suggestions and actions to complete

Submit GenAI Feedback

Help us improve the website

Rate this page

Report a problem

Help us improve the website