Celebrating Peer Review Week 2025
In support of its mission to advance science for the benefit of society, AMS publishes 12 respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Each year, more than 4,000 volunteer reviewers — subject-matter experts — generously contribute their time and insight to help ensure that every published article meets scientific standards.
These reviewers play a critical dual role: they advise journal editors on the suitability of manuscripts for publication and they guide authors in strengthening the accuracy, clarity, and overall impact of their research. Peer review is foundational to scientific progress, and the AMS values the commitment and expertise reviewers bring to this essential process.
Each September, AMS celebrates this vital work during Peer Review Week. It’s a time to recognize the anonymous, often unseen labor of reviewers and to spotlight the recipients of the AMS Editor’s Award, granted for excellence in reviewing. Peer Review Week offers a rare moment to publicly thank these contributors by name and invite them to reflect on the importance, and rewards, of peer review. Visit our Peer Review Week page to help celebrate all our reviewers and see other blog posts on this topic!
Peer Review Week also offers an opportunity to reflect. This year, we’re taking part in a timely global dialogue on how artificial intelligence is reshaping both peer review and the broader landscape of scholarly publishing. The AMS Publications Commission has been closely following the rapid rise of AI tools across research and scientific publishing, and, with their guidance, AMS has already adopted basic guidelines for both authors and reviewers. These policies are grounded in the collective knowledge of AMS stakeholders — authors, reviewers, and readers — and reflect the AMS commitment to thoughtful, responsible adoption of emerging technologies.
Groundbreaking research … ventures into the unknown, challenges established patterns, and introduces novel insights. And that kind of thinking still needs a human mind to recognize it.
—Pablo Zurita-Gotor
AI tools can offer efficiencies, from language editing to identifying potential conflicts of interest. However, peer review is more than a technical filter. It is a deeply human endeavor that relies on scholarly judgment, contextual understanding, and a commitment to the advancement of science through mentorship and collaboration.For Peer Review Week 2025, we asked the winners of this year’s AMS Editor’s Award to weigh in. Throughout the week, we’ll share their experiences and insights on the intersection of AI and peer review. What becomes clear through their words is that while technologies may evolve, the value of human expertise, integrity, and critical thinking remains irreplaceable.
For our first of three posts, we asked AMS Editor’s Award recipients: In the age of AI, why is it important to have human reviewers? Here’s what they had to say.
Sharanya Majumdar, University of Miami:
“Human reviewers understand what the work means, rather than simply what it does, and can provide constructive suggestions to increase [its] impact. I recently asked ChatGPT to critique a fundamental concept in my field. It gave a response that, while not incorrect, was formulaic and limited, about that of a C-grade student in my graduate courses. The extra layer of critiquing that distinguishes between different concepts, approaches, and techniques will likely need to be done by humans for a long time.”
Pablo Zurita-Gotor, Universidad Complutense:
“Human reviewers bring experience, judgment, and the ability to challenge assumptions in ways AI simply can’t replicate. In climate research especially, one common concern is that AI struggles when confronted with data that diverge from its training set. But groundbreaking research often does just that—it ventures into the unknown, challenges established patterns, and introduces novel insights. And that kind of bold thinking still needs a human mind to recognize it.”
Mara Freilich, Brown University:
“Science is an inherently creative endeavor and human reviewers are needed to both evaluate and support creative scientific work, even in the age of AI. It is essential to have human reviewers provide rigorous evaluation of the claims made by papers under review and of the ways that these claims are presented to provide a solid foundation for future science. This is a task that relates not to summarizing the paper, but instead is primarily about critical thinking.”
Steven Cavallo, University of Oklahoma:
“Human reviews are critical because context matters, and humans possess a deeper understanding of the topics. There is a certain depth of knowledge that experts have on a topic that AI could not replicate. An expert on a topic can offer fresh perspectives and creativity on ideas that may be unexplored or less well-known.”
Daniel Rothenberg, Brightband:
“As someone who works with large language models (LLMs) and related tools nearly every single day for a variety of professional and personal tasks, I’ve come to appreciate their limitations. AI is a tool, and just as a skilled craftsman can wield a tool to more effectively solve a problem, so too can someone use AI. Today we still write manuscripts for people to read — not for machines. So it’s vital that a real person sits down with the paper and asks important questions ahead of its receiving a wider audience.”
AMS has adopted guidelines to inform the use of AI tools for authors (see #12) and reviewers (see #13). The AMS Publications Commission welcomes your thoughts on the policies. Email [email protected].
