Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers but May Help Editors Triage: A Comparative Analysis of a Large Language Model and Human Reviewer Recommendations at the American Journal of Sports Medicine
Background: The peer review system faces increasing strain from rising manuscript volumes, reviewer fatigue, and well-documented interreviewer disagreement. Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential to support the peer review process, but their ability to replicate editorial decisions at high-impact medical journals and their utility as manuscript screening tools remain unknown. Purpose: To compare the agreement between an LLM and the final editorial decision on manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Sports Medicine and to evaluate the potential of LLMs as a manuscript screening tool. Study Design: Cross-sectional agreement study. Methods: Fifty-four manuscripts randomly selected from submissions to the American Journal of Sports Medicine (September 2024–October 2024) were reviewed by a locally deployed LLM (Ministral 3 14B; Mistral AI) using a standardized prompt. The artificial intelligence (AI) produced a categorical recommendation (reject, cascade, revision, or accept) and a numerical score (0-100) for each manuscript. Agreement with the final editorial decision was assessed by Cohen kappa (4-category model) for pooled human reviewers (n = 139 reviews) and the AI (n = 54). Screening performance was evaluated by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Pooled human reviewers demonstrated fair agreement with the final decision (κ = 0.181 [P < .001]; 42.4% agreement), while the AI demonstrated slight, nonsignificant agreement (κ = 0.126 [P = .099]; 37.0% agreement). The AI recommended revision for 61.1% of manuscripts, of which 72.7% were ultimately rejected or cascaded, demonstrating systematic “revision bias.” When the AI recommended rejection, 54.5% of those manuscripts were ultimately rejected and 27.3% were cascaded; when the AI recommended cascade, 50% were rejected and 50% were cascaded. However, when the AI recommended rejection or cascade (n = 21), 90.5% received a final decision of rejection or cascade (PPV, 90.5%; specificity, 81.8%). Manuscripts with an AI score <70 were rejected or cascaded 88.0% of the time (PPV, 88.0%). Conclusion: AI cannot replicate the nuanced judgment of human peer reviewers at a high-impact sports medicine journal. When AI recommended rejection or cascade, 90.5% of manuscripts received that final decision (descriptive PPV, 90.5%; 95% CI, 71.1%-97.3%), suggesting potential utility as an exploratory first-pass screening tool warranting further validation in larger cohorts. However, AI could not reliably distinguish manuscripts destined for outright rejection from those that would be cascaded to a sister journal—an important limitation for editorial triage applications.