Letter regarding “The role of reviewers in the era of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A practical guide for researchers”

This correspondence addresses three significant concerns regarding the current peer review process for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. First, while artificial intelligence tools can enhance language and readability, their implementation necessitates transparent disclosure and diligent human oversight, as AI-generated content may contain errors, fabricated references, or misleading interpretations. Second, an overreliance on text similarity reports may promote unnecessary paraphrasing of standardized methodological descriptions, leading to unclear or convoluted phrasing without enhancing scientific originality. Third, the verification of references has increasingly burdened reviewers due to inaccurate citations and repeated security barriers encountered during source verification, which further prolongs the review process and exacerbates reviewer fatigue. We contend that journals and publishers should enhance editorial screening, utilize responsible similarity and reference-checking tools, provide clearer guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis methods sections, and improve access systems to facilitate efficient and reliable peer review.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biomolecules and Biomedicine
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17305/bb.2026.14264
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Letter regarding “The role of reviewers in the era of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A practical guide for researchers”

Himel Mondal
Biomolecules and Biomedicine
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Letter regarding “The role of reviewers in the era of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A practical guide for researchers”

Himel Mondal
article en

Abstract

This correspondence addresses three significant concerns regarding the current peer review process for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. First, while artificial intelligence tools can enhance language and readability, their implementation necessitates transparent disclosure and diligent human oversight, as AI-generated content may contain errors, fabricated references, or misleading interpretations. Second, an overreliance on text similarity reports may promote unnecessary paraphrasing of standardized methodological descriptions, leading to unclear or convoluted phrasing without enhancing scientific originality. Third, the verification of references has increasingly burdened reviewers due to inaccurate citations and repeated security barriers encountered during source verification, which further prolongs the review process and exacerbates reviewer fatigue. We contend that journals and publishers should enhance editorial screening, utilize responsible similarity and reference-checking tools, provide clearer guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis methods sections, and improve access systems to facilitate efficient and reliable peer review.

Biomolecules and Biomedicine
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.