Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review Capacity in Forestry: A Decade of Evolution and an Introduction to Proposed MCFNS Guidelines for AI-Assisted Review
キーワード:
peer review、 artificial intelligence、 large language models、 scientific publishing、 forestry journals、 MCFNS要旨
Ten years after an opinionated discussion of traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives was published in this journal, the landscape of scientific publishing in forestry has changed considerably. The fundamental supply-demand imbalance identified in 2015 has worsened: reviewer non-response rates already averaged 47.8% in 2015, and projection models now indicate a demand-to-supply ratio rising from roughly 1.0:1 in 2002 to 4.5:1 in 2024 and a projected 9.4:1 by 2032. Against this backdrop, artificial intelligence (AI) tools have moved from speculative alternatives to active components of many researchers' review workflows, with a 2025 survey reporting that 53% of researchers used AI assistance in peer review (Frontiers Media, 2025). Yet journal-level guidance has lagged adoption: most major forestry journal publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis) now bar reviewers from uploading manuscripts to AI tools, while Frontiers uses an AI assistant for research integrity assessments, leaving the active middle ground of AI-assisted review largely ungoverned. This paper revisits the four structural premises and four alternative review models discussed in 2015, assesses how each has evolved over the intervening decade, and introduces a new MCFNS section on AI applications in forestry. It also provides context for the accompanying AI-Assisted Review Guidelines, proposed for discussion and voluntary use, summarizes empirical findings on AI versus human review performance (including recent biotechnology-sector evaluation of GPT-5, Qwen-Plus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro across 398 open peer-reviewed preprints), situates the MCFNS approach within the shadow AI versus governed AI framework recently formalized in the operations literature, and presents an anonymized scored example applying the structured framework to a recently declined MCFNS submission. As a demonstration of the framework's applicability, this manuscript was self-assessed using the same B1–B12 rubric prior to publication; the evaluation, including pre- and post-revision scores and a full issue disposition table, is reported in Appendix A. MCFNS, which pioneered open and hybrid peer-review in forestry, is a natural venue to lead a second wave of reform with a structured, evidence-based framework for responsible AI integration.
参考文献
Zhargava, H.K., Bana, S.H., Zhang, Z., Loupos, P., Zantedeschi, D., Brandimarte, L., Choudhary, V., Li, J.F., 2026. Fighting fire with fire: infusing AI into peer review to sustain quality scholarship. Working paper, March 2, 2026.
Chen, C., Kershaw, J.A. Jr., Weiskittel, A.R., McGarrigle, E., 2023. Can a multistage approach improve individual tree mortality predictions across the complex mixed-species and managed forests of eastern North America? Forest Ecosystems 10, 100086.
Cieszewski, C.J., 2026. Artificial intelligence as a research instrument and an editorial burden: scientific judgment, forestry scientometrics, and academic incentives. Math. Comput. For. Nat.-Res. Sci. 18(1), 36–58.
Cieszewski, C.J., Strub, M.R., 2009. The foundation of Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences (MCFNS). Math. Comput. For. Nat.-Res. Sci. 1, 41–46.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2019. Core practices and guidelines for peer review. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices.
Cunningham, S., 2026. Claude Code 27: Research and publishing. Causal Inference with Mixtape [Substack blog], Feb. 2026. https://causalinf.substack.com/p/claude-code-27-research-and-publishing.
Duijm, E., 2024. The coming apocalypse for scientific publishing. The BS Detector [Substack blog], Oct. 2024. https://thebsdetector.substack.com/p/the-coming-apocalypse-for-scientific.
Dutilleul, P., 1993. Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49, 305–314.
Frontiers Media, 2025. The State of Peer Review 2025: Global Survey of Researcher Attitudes and Practices. Frontiers Media S.A., Lausanne, Switzerland.
García, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2015. The principal-agent problem in peer review. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 297–308.
Koppel, M., Schler, J., Argamon, S., 2009. Computational methods in authorship attribution. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 9–26.
Kustov, A., 2026. Academics need to wake up on AI: Ten theses for folks who haven't noticed the ground shifting under their feet. Popular by Design [Substack blog], Mar. 2, 2026. https://www.popularbydesign.org/p/academics-need-to-wake-up-on-ai.
Li, W., Zhao, R., Sun, P.-T., Lee, J., Lu, O., Yuan, S., Sureshkumar, P., Chen, Y., Xiao, Z., Tang, Y.J., 2026. Large language models for peer review in biotechnology. New Biotechnol. 93, 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2026.03.007.
Osorio, F., Vallejos, R., 2024. SpatialPack: Computing the association between two spatial processes. R package version 0.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SpatialPack.
Russell, M.B., Weiskittel, A.R., 2026. Improving peer review capacity and integrity in forestry journals. Forest Ecosystems 16, 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fecs.2026.100455.
Tennant, J.P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D.C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L.B., Hartgerink, C.H.J., 2016. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 5, 632.
Walters, W.H., Wilder, E.I., 2023. Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Sci. Rep. 13, 14045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5.
Weiskittel, A.R., 2015. Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: an opinionated discussion. Math. Comput. For. Nat.-Res. Sci. 7(2), 81–92.
ダウンロード
発行日
巻号
セクション
ライセンス
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) following the publication by the journal, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
