# AI-written peer reviews outscored top human experts in blind comparisons, Harvard working paper finds

Source: [PsyPost – Psychology News](https://www.psypost.org/ai-written-peer-reviews-outscored-top-human-experts-in-blind-comparisons-harvard-working-paper-finds/) · 2026-11-12 · Mind
Page: https://themorning.science/story/ai-written-peer-reviews-outscored-top-human-experts-in-blind-comparisons-harvard-b68eb04b0acbaa0d
Kind: research · Impact: medium

## In brief

- A Harvard working paper reports that advanced AI models produced peer reviews of unpublished academic papers that scored higher than those of well-paid human experts in blind comparisons.
- The blind comparisons were judged by an AI model and by human evaluators, according to the PsyPost summary.
- The study covers reviews generated under ideal conditions for the human experts, per the source; the paper itself is a working paper and not yet peer reviewed.

## Why it matters

If AI-written reviews are judged more thorough and constructive than expert reviews, journals and conferences may need to rethink how review quality is assessed and who writes reviews.

## Timeline

- 2026-11-12: PsyPost reports that a Harvard working paper finds AI-written peer reviews outscored top human experts in blind comparisons

## Coverage

- [AI-written peer reviews outscored top human experts in blind comparisons, Harvard working paper finds](https://www.psypost.org/ai-written-peer-reviews-outscored-top-human-experts-in-blind-comparisons-harvard-working-paper-finds/) — PsyPost – Psychology News, 2026-11-12

Tags: peer review, artificial intelligence, academic publishing, research integrity

---

Brief generated by AI (claude-haiku-5-5) from the reporting listed under Coverage. Headlines belong to their publishers. The Morning Science – https://themorning.science