Can AI Solve the Peer Review Crisis? A Large Scale Cross Model Experiment of LLMs' Performance and Biases in Evaluating over 1000 Economics Papers

Abstract

This study examines the potential of large language models (LLMs) to augment the academic peer review process by reliably evaluating the quality of economics research without introducing systematic bias. We conduct one of the first large-scale experimental assessments of four LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5, Gemma 3, and LLaMA 3.3) across two complementary experiments. In the first, we use nonparametric binscatter and linear regression techniques to analyze over 29,000 evaluations of 1,220 anonymized papers drawn from 110 economics journals excluded from the training data of current LLMs, along with a set of AI-generated submissions. The results show that LLMs consistently distinguish between higher- and lower-quality research based solely on textual content, producing quality gradients that closely align with established journal prestige measures. Claude and Gemma perform exceptionally well in capturing these gradients, while GPT excels in detecting AI-generated content. The second experiment comprises 8,910 evaluations designed to assess whether LLMs replicate human like biases in single blind reviews. By systematically varying author gender, institutional affiliation, and academic prominence across 330 papers, we find that GPT, Gemma, and LLaMA assign significantly higher ratings to submissions from top male authors and elite institutions relative to the same papers presented anonymously. These results emphasize the importance of excluding author-identifying information when deploying LLMs in editorial screening. Overall, our findings provide compelling evidence and practical guidance for integrating LLMs into peer review to enhance efficiency, improve accuracy, and promote equity in the publication process of economics research.