{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreidalbt6uset5vxesy7nezdvbur6nfn7mlcbyfnh6ld2efvty4ebza",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:gxs6vp6pkwm2revsdeyh6g5v/app.bsky.feed.post/3mknwrxdfsns2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreiaimi7e3ppys44rgamensjkihmkjx5yeaflazhjcfy5wtcme5aq4u"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 97554
  },
  "path": "/2026/04/29/illicit-use-ai-philosophers-refereeing-journals/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-29T14:11:16.000Z",
  "site": "https://dailynous.com",
  "tags": [
    "Publishing",
    "artificial intelligence AI",
    "journals",
    "peer review",
    "publishing",
    "refereeing",
    "Illicit Use of AI by Philosophers Refereeing for Journals",
    "Daily Nous"
  ],
  "textContent": "In 2024, a study found that “7–17% of the sentences in the reviews [of computer science manuscripts] were written by LLMs”. It was only a matter of time before this spread, and now it appears to have reached philosophy. Last year, a philosophy PhD student in the US submitted a paper to a well-known philosophy journal. They write: The paper was rejected a few months ago; the first reviewer left very detailed feedback and suggested substantial R&R while seeming generally positive about the paper, the second reviewer suggested rejection. At first, I appreciated both of their feedback, and this was sort of my first go at submitting for publication anyway. However, I recently showed this feedback to someone else who thought the first reviewer (the more positive reviewer!) sounded like AI. [This] hadn’t occurred to me when I first received it, but it now seems very clear that it was AI-written. Although I know they aren’t the most reliable tools, I also checked with a couple of AI detectors and they come back as highly confident the text is 100% AI generated. I believe this is the first time someone has written to me about this happening in philosophy, which means it is almost certainly not the first time it has happened. Has it happened to you? (This is philosophy, so start by checking the reports that seemed relatively nice.) It’s worth discussing. We can start with why, as things stand now, if you are asked to referee a submission for a journal, it would probably be wrong for you to use AI’s like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc., in doing so (except, sometimes, in a very limited capacity). Here is why: 1. Let’s start with you feeding the manuscript into an AI. One problem here is that you have no reason to believe that the author of the manuscript agreed to the manuscript becoming training data for an AI, or for whichever AI you happen to use. Given that there is well-known controversy over this, you shouldn’t assume the people you are working with would agree it’s okay. When you agree to referee for a journal, you agree to abide by the publisher’s review policies, and various academic publishers explicitly..\n\nThe post Illicit Use of AI by Philosophers Refereeing for Journals first appeared on Daily Nous.",
  "title": "Illicit Use of AI by Philosophers Refereeing for Journals"
}