Neuroscience Editor Quits Over AI Peer Review System Overreach

A neuroscience journal editor has resigned from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, citing the publisher's artificial intelligence system for undermining editorial control and academic quality standards.

Michael Okun, an associate professor at the University of Nottingham, announced his departure on social media in June after the publisher's Artificial Intelligence Research Assistant (AIRA) system automatically sent peer review invitations without his approval—and to researchers lacking relevant expertise.

The Breaking Point

The conflict began in early May when Okun received a manuscript on neuronal network dynamics. He invited approximately six potential reviewers, but before any accepted, AIRA independently contacted other researchers. Two of those automatically selected reviewers—neither qualified to assess the work, according to Okun—accepted the assignments.

When Okun raised concerns with Frontiers, he was told to disregard AIRA's invitations and continue his own search. But when one of his hand-picked experts accepted, the system revoked all his other pending invitations within hours.

"It's just inconceivable that a manual invitation to someone who is actually an expert in the field is revoked just a few hours after it is sent," Okun said in an interview with The Transmitter, which first reported the story.

Okun characterized the behavior as intentional design rather than technical malfunction: "These are not bugs but intentional features, designed to essentially remove the human editors as much as possible."

A Broader Pattern

Okun's experience is not isolated. Shuzo Sakata, a systems neuroscience professor at the University of Strathclyde and fellow Frontiers editor, reported that the automated system invited reviewers even after he rejected a manuscript. He no longer accepts editing assignments from the journal.

Other researchers contacted by The Transmitter described receiving frequent, poorly targeted invitations from AIRA. Earl K. Miller, a neuroscience professor at MIT, noted that Frontiers "constantly" sends him requests unrelated to his expertise. Mathew Diamond of the International School for Advanced Studies said 97 percent of his editor invitations involve manuscripts outside his specialization.

Publisher's Defense

Frederick Fenter, Frontiers' chief executive editor, defended the system while acknowledging communication failures in Okun's case. He emphasized that editors retain "full discretion" over automated suggestions and can pause invitations at any stage—a capability not clearly communicated to Okun.

Fenter cited efficiency gains: average time to secure reviewers has dropped 30 percent in the past year. Internal data shows 80 percent of editors find automation helpful, and 94 percent of authors rate their peer review experience positively.

"We remain committed to keeping human expertise at the centre of peer review," Fenter stated, adding that a Research Integrity Team maintains oversight of automated processes.

Why it matters

The incident highlights tensions between efficiency and quality control as publishers deploy AI tools across scholarly communication. While automation can accelerate processes, the case illustrates risks when systems override expert judgment—potentially compromising the peer review foundation of academic credibility. The debate extends beyond one journal: as AI becomes standard in publishing workflows, the balance between human oversight and algorithmic decision-making will shape research validation across disciplines.

Okun supports AI-assisted reviewer identification provided human editors maintain control, or alternatively, fully automated systems with transparent disclosure. "As long as it is honest and you don't just slap someone's name on it, that's potentially also perfectly fine," he said.

These details were first reported by The Transmitter.