AI Tools Drive Record Increases in Manuscript Submissions Worldwide
Academic publishing is experiencing an unprecedented surge in manuscript submissions, fueled by the widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence tools. Researchers across disciplines report using large language models to assist with drafting, editing, literature synthesis, and structuring papers, leading to higher output volumes in a shorter time frame. This shift has been particularly noticeable since late 2022, with some journals documenting submission growth exceeding 40 percent in subsequent years.
Non-native English speakers have benefited significantly from these tools, which help overcome language barriers in scholarly communication. Studies indicate productivity gains of one-third or more on preprint servers such as arXiv, with even higher increases observed on bioRxiv and SSRN. The result is a broader participation in research dissemination from regions where English proficiency has historically limited publication rates.
Quantifying the Scale of AI-Assisted Writing in Research Outputs
Analyses of millions of papers reveal that AI assistance in academic writing has grown dramatically across fields. One examination of over 5.2 million papers from more than 5,000 journals found that usage increased irrespective of journal policies on disclosure. Physical sciences, open-access publications, and researchers in non-English-speaking countries showed the strongest upward trends. Full-text reviews of recent publications highlight a persistent gap in transparency, with very few authors explicitly noting AI contributions despite the tools' prevalence.
In computer science, estimates suggest that up to one-fifth of sentences in recent papers may bear AI influence, based on linguistic markers more common in machine-generated text. Similar patterns appear in electrical engineering, statistics, and physics preprints. These changes reflect both genuine productivity enhancements and the ease with which polished prose can now be produced.
Publisher Experiences Reveal Mixed Outcomes from Higher Submission Volumes
Leading journals have observed submission increases ranging from modest single-digit percentages to dramatic jumps approaching 50 percent in certain disciplines. At Organization Science, volumes rose 42 percent following the introduction of advanced language models, with the majority of recent submissions showing some degree of AI involvement. However, this expansion has coincided with measurable declines in writing quality metrics, such as readability scores.
Publishers note that while AI can accelerate initial drafting and reduce grammatical errors, it often produces content that lacks depth, originality, or precise alignment with research findings. Editorial teams report spending additional time screening for superficial or repetitive material that previously would not have reached their desks. This dynamic places new pressures on already stretched resources.
Peer Review Processes Adapt to Rising Volumes and New Content Types
The influx of manuscripts has intensified reviewer fatigue across the scholarly ecosystem. Journals increasingly deploy AI-powered screening tools to check for completeness, statistical anomalies, image integrity, and compliance issues before human reviewers engage. These automated steps help triage submissions but cannot replace nuanced expert judgment on scientific merit.
AI-generated or AI-assisted reviews have also entered the workflow, sometimes exhibiting narrower focus, reduced topical diversity, and lower overall quality compared with traditional human evaluations. Editors must now distinguish between helpful AI-supported feedback and generic or misleading commentary that fails to advance meaningful dialogue between authors and reviewers.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Integrity Concerns and the Rise of Low-Quality or Fabricated Content
Alongside productivity gains, the scholarly community faces heightened risks of compromised research integrity. Concerns center on fabricated data, hallucinated references, and the mass production of marginally valuable papers that consume editorial and reviewer bandwidth without advancing knowledge. Paper mill activity has reportedly increased, with some automated detection systems flagging significant percentages of submissions for further scrutiny.
Preprint servers have begun implementing penalties for egregious AI-related errors, underscoring the need for clearer norms. Researchers and administrators alike emphasize that while AI serves as a valuable assistant for language polishing and idea organization, it does not substitute for rigorous hypothesis development, experimental design, or critical analysis.
Regional and Disciplinary Variations in AI Adoption Patterns
Adoption rates differ markedly by geography and field. Emerging research economies in Asia, Latin America, and parts of Europe show accelerated uptake, often correlating with efforts to increase international visibility of local scholarship. Physical sciences and computer science lead in detectable AI influence, while some humanities and social science areas exhibit slower integration due to the interpretive nature of the work.
Open-access journals have recorded particularly strong growth in AI-assisted submissions, possibly because lower barriers to entry encourage experimentation with new writing workflows. These patterns suggest that AI is amplifying existing trends toward greater global participation in science while also concentrating certain risks in high-volume disciplines.
Institutional and Policy Responses Across the Publishing Landscape
More than two-thirds of journals have introduced guidelines requiring disclosure of AI use, yet evidence indicates these measures have not slowed adoption or improved transparency rates. Many policies focus on author responsibility without robust verification mechanisms, leaving enforcement largely dependent on voluntary compliance.
Professional associations and publishers are exploring enhanced detection methods, updated ethical frameworks, and training programs for editors and reviewers. Some organizations advocate shifting from declarative policies toward systems that reward verifiable responsible use, such as standardized reporting templates or integrated AI-audit features in submission platforms.
Implications for Researchers, Administrators, and Career Pathways
For individual scholars, AI tools offer clear advantages in efficiency but require careful calibration to maintain authenticity and intellectual contribution. Early-career researchers and those in non-English environments stand to gain the most from productivity boosts, potentially leveling certain competitive fields. University administrators overseeing research offices are evaluating how to incorporate AI literacy into training while safeguarding promotion and tenure criteria that emphasize original contribution.
PhD-track job seekers may find that demonstrated ability to leverage AI responsibly becomes a valued skill alongside traditional research competencies. At the same time, heightened scrutiny of publication records could affect hiring and funding decisions if quality signals become harder to interpret amid volume increases.
Photo by Karl Solano on Unsplash
Future Outlook: Balancing Innovation with Scholarly Standards
Looking ahead, the trajectory points toward deeper integration of AI across the research lifecycle, from literature discovery and experiment planning to post-publication metrics and knowledge synthesis. Successful adaptation will depend on developing verifiable accountability structures, refining detection capabilities, and fostering cultural norms that prioritize substance over quantity.
Stakeholders anticipate continued experimentation with hybrid human-AI workflows that preserve the core values of rigor, reproducibility, and ethical conduct. Journals and institutions that invest in scalable quality controls while supporting genuine productivity gains are likely to shape the next phase of scholarly communication.
Practical Steps for Navigating the Evolving Publishing Environment
Researchers can maximize benefits by treating AI as a collaborative drafting aid rather than an autonomous author. Clear documentation of tool usage, combined with thorough human oversight of all claims and data, helps maintain credibility. Administrators may consider institutional guidelines that encourage responsible experimentation while monitoring aggregate submission and quality trends within their faculties.
Cross-disciplinary dialogue among publishers, funders, and academic societies remains essential for establishing shared standards that support innovation without eroding trust in the published record. Ongoing evaluation of these dynamics will inform sustainable practices for years to come.
