AI-Enhanced Scholarly Communication: Transforming Peer Review, Knowledge Dissemination, and Academic Publishing Workflows in the Digital Era

Authors

  • Muhammad Huzaifa Bin Salih PhD Scholar, Assistant Director Information, DGIPR, Peshawar, Pakistan Author
  • Tahir Gul MPhil Education, Abasyn University, Peshawar, Pakistan Author
  • Syeda Sumblah Bukhari PhD Scholar, Lecturer, Department of Media Studies, University of South Asia, Lahore, Pakistan Author
  • Iffat Liaqat Mphil Scholar of mass communication, Advocate Lahore High Court, Lahore, Pakistan Author
  • Anam Majeed Mphil Scholar, Lecturer Army Public School, Lahore, Pakistan Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64229/4qp06e84

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Scholarly Communication, Peer Review, Knowledge Dissemination, Academic Publishing, Ethical Challenges

Abstract

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in academic communication is changing the conventional methods of peer reviews, knowledge diffusion, and the publishing process in academic activities. This paper will discuss how AI-based tools are changing the speed, quality of scholarly outputs, and its accessibility whilst increasing ethical and equity issues. Based on the qualitative research framework, the paper will examine scholarly insights into the opportunities and challenges of AI to using AI in publishing. Examples of the major areas of impact include the transformation of peer review, in the form of automated quality assurance and natural language processing, improvement of knowledge distribution via smart indexing and recommendations, and streamlining of the publishing process with AI-enhanced editing and formatting. Its conclusions point to the positive values of efficiency, transparency, and greater accessibility on the one hand, and to the potential threats of algorithmic bias, transparency, and loss of human judgment on the other. In conclusion, the analysis arrives at the conclusions that hybrid human-AI systems, where transparency and ethical supervision play the key role, are the most sustainable direction. Recommendations are also placed on researchers, publishers, and policymakers so as to promote responsible and inclusive AI-enhanced scholarly communication.

References

[1]Smith, J. (2012). The future of scholarly communication. Journal of Academic Publishing, 45(2), 95–110.

[2]Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., & Crick, T. (2018). Innovations in scholarly communication. F1000Research, 7, 192.

[3]Resnik, D., & Master, Z. (2013). Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 308–329.

[4]Lee, Y., Park, H., & Kim, J. (2021). Natural language processing in research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 15(4), 101–118.

[5]Bosman, J., & Kramer, B. (2018). Innovations in peer review: AI-assisted evaluation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1), 8.

[6]Alves, P., Costa, C., & Ribeiro, F. (2020). Semantic enrichment of scientific publications through AI techniques. Journal of Information Science, 46(4), 451–466.

[7]Hendricks, G., Khan, N., & Taylor, M. (2018). Citation network analysis with AI. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1501–1520.

[8]Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2019). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.

[9]Anderson, J., & Lee, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing: Efficiency and quality gains. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38(2), 321–333.

[10]Martinez, R., & Ross, K. (2023). Workflow automation in academic publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 39(1), 65–78.

[11]Chan, L., Hall, B., & Shearer, K. (2021). AI for open science: Opportunities and challenges. Open Science Journal, 6(3), 11–22.

[12]Garcia, R., Smith, T., & Walker, J. (2022). Bias detection in AI-assisted peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 53(4), 221–237.

[13]Baker, S., & Johnson, P. (2020). Algorithmic peer review: Risks and recommendations. Learned Publishing, 33(4), 334–345.

[14]Wang, D., Zhang, Y., & Li, H. (2022). AI and inequality in global scholarly publishing. Scientometrics, 127(4), 2103–2122.

[15]Cabitza, F., Rasoini, R., & Gensini, G. F. (2017). Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA, 318(6), 517–518.

[16]Lee, J., & Kao, D. (2024). Hybrid peer review models: Balancing AI and human judgment. Journal of Scholarly Communication, 12(1), 45–63.

[17]Rodriguez, M., Patel, S., & Evans, C. (2023). Fairness auditing of AI systems in scholarly publishing. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(3), 567–582.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-22

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 4 (2025)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Huzaifa Bin Salih, Tahir Gul, Syeda Sumblah Bukhari, Iffat Liaqat, Anam Majeed (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.