Review of: "The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Lifecycle of Scientific Manuscripts: Authoring, Reviewing, and Editorial Selection"

The paper "The Role of Arti cial Intelligence in the Lifecycle of Scienti c Manuscripts: Authoring, Reviewing, and Editorial Selection" provides an interesting starting point to consider and discuss the current problems of peer review and how they are ampli ed by AI-(supported) peer review.The solutions suggested in the provided framework are overall valuable.I have some minor recommendations that may help to further improve the manuscript. .Introduction: In the introduction, it is claimed that "50% used AI tools when peer reviewing manuscripts".At this point, it may be valuable to clarify which parts of peer review LLMs are used for.Especially considering the later part of the manuscript, it should be clari ed what exactly the problem of using LLMs in peer review is.So, for instance, is it a problem if reviewers try to polish their language to make their recommendations clearer?Or if reviewers ask an LLM whether their comments are helpful to the authors?It may help to specify here exactly which parts of the reviewing process the 50% refer to and to contextualise this before speaking of an "undisciplined adoption", as some reviewers may indeed spend more time reviewing when only editing their language with an LLM.And in this case, I think there would also be no "paradox"; AI could also "alleviate burdens like linguistic inequality" in this regard.3.