A rising trend of AI-generated commentaries is increasingly overwhelming academic journals, distorting scholarly metrics and raising questions about the integrity of scientific publishing. As reported in Science Magazine, these commentaries, often created with AI tools like ChatGPT, are becoming a shortcut for authors looking to quickly amass publications and citations, without contributing original research.
This trend became particularly evident in the journal Neurosurgical Review, which experienced an “unprecedented increase” in submissions of commentary articles after September 2024. Editor-in-Chief Daniel Prevedello announced on October 22 that the journal would temporarily halt the acceptance of letters and commentary manuscripts due to the overwhelming volume of submissions, many of which appeared to be AI-generated. This surge in commentaries is not an isolated incident, according to an investigation by Science Magazine and Retraction Watch. The journals Oral Oncology Reports and International Journal of Surgery Open have also seen commentaries rise to as much as 70% and 50% of their total content, respectively.
The rapid rise of these AI-generated commentaries is driven by a combination of factors. For authors, these pieces offer a quick and easy way to secure publications and citations. As Shirish Rao, a recent medical graduate from Mumbai, explains, commentaries don’t require original data, making them ideal for AI generation. “You don’t really need original data, so AI tools can generate them in almost no time,” says Rao. These pieces, often not subjected to peer review, are easier to get published compared to research articles, allowing authors to quickly increase their academic output.
The consequences of this trend extend beyond authors to academic journals and institutions. Journals benefit financially from commentary submissions, as many charge publication fees. Additionally, commentaries—especially those not subject to rigorous review—offer a means of gaming the impact factor, a key metric used to evaluate journal influence. Commentaries, which tend to be cited more frequently than research papers, can artificially inflate a journal’s impact factor and boost its reputation. As Stanford University bibliometrics expert John Ioannidis put it, commentaries are “a free lunch” for journals.
Institutions also find incentives in this practice, as commentaries help inflate their citation counts and rankings. In countries like India, several private universities are reportedly manipulating academic metrics to improve their standings. Achal Agrawal, a data scientist at Sitare University, noted that although India’s academic rankings appear to be rising, much of this is due to manipulative tactics rather than actual improvements in research quality.
A specific example of this phenomenon can be seen at Neurosurgical Review, where several authors from Saveetha University in India contributed a staggering 69 commentaries in just two months. These submissions were criticized for being AI-generated, lacking substantive relevance, and heavily citing works from Saveetha itself—an indication of a scheme to manipulate citations and publication counts. Saveetha University has previously been implicated in similar practices, including coercing students to write thousands of research papers during exams, which were then furnished with inappropriate citations. Despite these controversies, Saveetha has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that commentaries do not affect institutional rankings.
The widespread impact of these AI-generated commentaries is evident in the substantial rise in their numbers across several journals. In Neurosurgical Review, the proportion of commentaries, letters, and editorials jumped from 9% in 2023 to 58% in 2024. This pattern reflects a broader trend seen in numerous other journals, with institutions like Saveetha driving much of the increase. Bibliometrics expert Reese Richardson of Northwestern University found that Saveetha authors often cited their own institution’s work, suggesting a clear effort to inflate publication and citation metrics.
Despite the clear evidence of manipulation, many journals, including Neurosurgical Review, have yet to fully address the issue. A spokesperson for Springer Nature, the publisher of Neurosurgical Review, stated that the company was “looking into the matter urgently” but provided no additional details. Meanwhile, experts like Moumita Koley, a senior research analyst at the Indian Institute of Science, have called out the commentaries as “meaningless” and “definitely AI-generated,” further highlighting the negative impact on the credibility of scientific publishing.
