Psychoblog

Dear Open Science enthusiasts,

the next OS GOE Meet-up will take place on 23 June 2026, and we would like approaches and guidance related to the use of AI in peer review. Note that the meeting will take place in person at the department of Physics.

Please register via  https://events.gwdg.de/e/37osmu

You are very welcome to forward this information to anyone who might be interested to join!

We very much look forward to see you soon.

With best regards from the orga team,
Daniel, Julika, Astrid, Markus and Birgit

Rethinking Peer Review in the Age of AI

Venue: UGOE, Department of Physics, SR 15
Date: 23 June 2026
Hour: 13.00-15.00 o’clock
Registration: https://events.gwdg.de/e/37osmu
Archive of presentations & materials: https://owncloud.gwdg.de/index.php/s/Z6qmhAv8ypUQCOv
Back to master pad: https://pad.gwdg.de/OpenScienceGOE

Abstract

Peer review remains a corner stone of quality assurance and selection processes in the context of scholarly publishing, academic conferences and research funding. However, in an age of AI, there are multiple challenges for authors and reviewers. Reviewers are faced with a glut of review requests which are often automatically but poorly matched with their expertise areas. Moreover, quality issues can arise from the use of AI by authors, e.g. hallucinated citations and manipulation of images.

AI-assistance is now available at all stages of the research cycle and in particular, in the publication process: for the writing of project proposals or academic works, pre-submission review/feedback, editorial screening of manuscripts, journal and reviewer matching, compliance checks, review of manuscripts, formatting, metadata generation, metrics and dissemination.

Several research funders, institutions and publishers have developed guidance on what use is considered acceptable in the context of writing and peer review, and how this use should be disclosed.

In this session, we would like to explore and discuss questions such as:

• What guidance is available from research funders and publishers on the use of AI tools in peer review?
• What AI use is acceptable in peer review, and how should it be disclosed?
• What AI tools are available to assist peer reviewers?
• What tools might be used by authors to check and improve works or proposals before submission?

Please get in touch if you would like to share your experiences and views via a short presentation.

Agenda

13.00 – 13.15 Welcome & Introduction

13.15 – 14.30 Short presentations

• Funder regulations for AI usage in review processes – Katharina Beier, UGOE
• Journal editor perspective – Simon Blackwell, Georg-Elias-Mueller-Institute of Psychology, UGOE
• The Good, the Bad, and the Bizarre of AI-Generated Reviews – Frederic Kirstein, UGOE
• Reviewer and author perspective – Markus Osterhoff, UGOE
• Publisher perspective – Johannes Wagner, Copernicus Publications

14.30 – 15.00 Discussion

Dear all,

We are delighted to announce that Tobias Schuwerk (LMU Munich) will give a talk on participatory research  as part of our CogSci colloquium.

Time: Thursday, July 9^th 12:15

Location: Room 2.111, Waldweg 26

Abstract: 

Research with, not about — but how? Paths toward participatory research

‚Research with, not about‘ is easily said — but how do you actually put it into practice? Participatory research shares decision-making and creative control between academic expertise and expertise grounded in lived experience, turning research about the people it concerns into research with them. It promises more relevant questions, higher quality, and greater trust, yet at the same time places considerable demands on mindset, time, and structures. This talk is intended for anyone who would like to do participatory work themselves. After briefly arriving at a shared understanding of the basic idea, its history, and common recommendations, with the ladder of participation as a framework, three very different fields take center stage: work with autistic people; efforts to address sexualized violence in a church context, carried jointly with experiential expertise; and participatory research with children and adolescents. Along the way, the talk presents attempted solutions of its own: approaches that have proven useful in practice but are expressly not a blueprint and remain open to refinement and disagreement. Comparing across these fields reveals which principles carry over and which pitfalls keep recurring, offering practical pointers for participatory work of one’s own.