NBER paper: giving the AI review report to only one peer reviewer beats sharing it with both
joshgans · x · 2026-09-06
Economist Joshua Gans' NBER working paper "Designing AI-Augmented Peer Review" (w35688) analyzes how AI-generated manuscript assessments should enter peer review.
- Key insight: if both reviewers read the same AI report, they can replicate each other's errors and share blind spots, reducing editors' information
- Conclusion: giving the report to only one reviewer best combines AI assistance with independent human investigation; sanctioned sharing still beats tolerating private AI use
- Even a report delivered after submission shifts what reviewers investigate if they know which issues the AI will check
- Proposes a practical experiment: randomly vary report sharing and compare reviewer disagreement
Acknowledgements mention ChatGPT 5.6 among the tools used.
Related event: NBER Paper: AI Review Reports Work Best Given to a Single Reviewer(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- tenobrus: Human-centric code conventions may not survive superhuman coding models — ricklamers · 2026-09-07
- Deep dive: grading 42 funds behind the AI private-equity rollup wave — curious_vii · 2026-09-07
- OpenAI Publishes 'An Alien Mind' by Its Chief Scientist — bparrish · 2026-09-07
- OpenAI Chief Scientist: No Lab Has Solved Alignment Enough to Keep Scaling at Max Speed — Tinac4 · 2026-09-07
- LLMs as a Cognitive Virus: New Paper Models AI Dependence Tipping Points — serrjoa · 2026-09-07
- Privacy Outrage Is Just the Lag Between Tech Progress and Cultural Adaptation — signulll · 2026-09-07