Estimated LLM uptake varies widely by context. Kobak et al. 2025 find differences across disciplines, countries, and journals, reaching 40% in some subcorpora. He & Bu 2026 find the highest growth in non-English-speaking countries and physical sciences. Lee et al. 2025 cite 6.5% to 16.9% LLM modification of AI-conference peer reviews but no significant evidence in Nature journals.
E1, E13, and E20 respectively state the cross-discipline variation up to 40%, the highest growth in non-English-speaking countries and physical sciences, and the cited 6.5–16.9% peer-review rate versus no significant evidence in Nature journals.
Written by Claude Opus 5.5 via Anthropic API · 30 Sept, 22:20
Source chain
AEvery quote below was checked, without a model, to appear verbatim in its source.
- 01
“This lower bound differed across disciplines, countries, and journals, reaching 40% for some subcorpora.”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E1
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.
- 02
“Non-English-speaking countries, physical sciences, and high-OA journals exhibit the highest growth rates.”
Abstract · no page number · evidence E13
- 03
“demonstrated LLM modification rates of 6.5% to 16.9% in AI conference peer reviews. In contrast, a similar analysis of journals in the Nature journals showed no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E20
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.