Manuel B. Garcia

Manuel B. Garcia serves as the Senior Director for Educational Technology and Digital Learning at FEU Institute of Technology, Manila, Philippines. Read More

Contact Info

1607, FEU Tech Building,
P. Paredes St, Sampaloc,
Manila, Philippines
mbgarcia@feutech.edu.ph

Follow Me

Search the Field Guide

What are you trying to figure out?

Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.

Search Results

Results for “peer review”

Showing 376–400 of 479 results

479 guides
Supplement D · Guide 589

Should Researchers Keep a Record of How They Used AI?

Artificial Intelligence in Research

Researchers should consider keeping records of consequential AI assistance, particularly when it influences research methods, evidence, analysis, or findings. Learn what documentation can establish, which interactions warrant preservation, and how AI-use records support transparency without requiring researchers to archive every conversation.

Read Guide →
Supplement D · Guide 597

Should Researchers Record How AI Outputs Were Verified?

Artificial Intelligence in Research

Researchers should document how consequential AI outputs were verified, particularly when they influence research methods, evidence, analysis, or findings. Learn what constitutes meaningful verification, how to preserve supporting evidence, and why claiming that AI-generated content was reviewed is not equivalent to demonstrating that it was checked.

Read Guide →
Supplement D · Guide 628

Should Authors Be Told When AI Was Used in Editorial Assessment?

Artificial Intelligence in Research

Authors may have legitimate reasons to know when AI materially influences editorial assessment, particularly rejection or revision decisions. Learn how disclosure differs from permission, why routine automated checks require different consideration, and how journals can make AI-assisted editorial decisions more transparent and accountable.

Read Guide →
Supplement D · Guide 629

Can AI Bias Affect Peer-Review Decisions?

Artificial Intelligence in Research

AI-assisted peer review may introduce or reinforce biases affecting which manuscripts receive favorable assessments. Learn how methodological conventions, language patterns, research contexts, and automation bias can shape AI-generated evaluations, and how journals can test for unfair differences.

Read Guide →
Supplement D · Guide 633

Can Generative AI Identify Which Reviewer Comments Require New Analyses?

Artificial Intelligence in Research

Generative AI may help identify reviewer comments that appear to request new statistical or qualitative analyses. However, authors must distinguish actual analytical requirements from requests for clarification, assess whether additional analyses are justified, and avoid conducting unnecessary or misleading tests merely to satisfy generated revision plans.

Read Guide →
Supplement D · Guide 639

Can Confidential Reviewer Comments Be Uploaded to an AI Tool?

Artificial Intelligence in Research

Reviewer comments may contain confidential editorial information and unpublished research details. Uploading them to an AI tool can create disclosure and data-handling risks, even when the authors received the comments legitimately. Learn when processing may be permitted, what safeguards matter, and why removing names does not necessarily eliminate confidentiality concerns.

Read Guide →