In their letters to the editor, Teixeira da Silva (2023) and Tang (2023) astutely raised critical concerns regarding the attribution of artificial intelligence (AI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT) as authors and their uses in creating manuscript content, respectively. They highlighted the necessity of updated editorial policies that explicitly require disclosure of AI usage in manuscripts. Although the scientific community swiftly addressed the issue of AI-driven authorship and AI-generated content (e.g., attribution and declaration), the same level of attention has not been given to the peer review process. Given their willingness to accept papers containing AI-generated content under specific conditions (Tang, 2023), should academic journals also permit reviewers to utilize AI tools in writing their reports? Could leveraging these AI tools address the many challenges (e.g., reviewer availability, timely evaluations, and a growing number of submissions) that hinder timely research dissemination?

First, I would like to acknowledge that the expertise and judgment of human reviewers cannot be replicated by AI tools. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) even warned reviewers that "AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased". Despite this cautionary note, preliminary studies (e.g., Hosseini & Horbach, 2023) suggest that using AI tools in various writing tasks holds promise for improving productivity. For instance, reviewers can potentially generate a well-articulated report by feeding their jotted notes to AI tools. Having the opportunity to streamline the review process may be sufficient to encourage reviewers to accept invitations. This is particularly significant considering that reviewers often decline due to time constraints and an overwhelming workload. With AI tools at their disposal, reviewers may also be able to help academic journals in managing the increasing manuscript submissions by submitting timely evaluations.

Despite these potential benefits, it is crucial to acknowledge that guidelines and protocols are not currently in place to regulate the use of AI tools in the peer review process. As academic journals consider embracing the use of ChatGPT, a contentious debate emerges: Do we risk compromising the traditional human-driven peer review process in pursuit of efficiency and innovation, or do we prioritize the preservation of established standards and human expertise? I say that we strike a delicate balance between leveraging AI tools for enhancing productivity and maintaining the rigorous standards and integrity of the academic publishing system.