Some thoughts on AI, scientific papers, and peer review

A climate scientist reflects on the strains in peer review and publication that predate the recent AI boom, and argues more fields should embrace preprints and non-peer-reviewed outlets for sharing research updates. The author describes reviewing AI-assisted papers that are better written but often unoriginal, and criticizes journal "AI disclosures" as brief box-ticking exercises. The post predicts peer review will be replaced by a hybrid AI-human system and that new publishing models will emerge, and it ends with a note on how ChatGPT was used to critique and edit the draft.