Fixing the Flag but Not the Problem: Can Authors “Game” Screening Tools in Automated Peer Review?

dr. Michèle Nuijten

Peer review is under strain: too few reviewers assess too many papers, and methodological problems are routinely missed. Automated Screening Tools (ASTs) - software that checks manuscripts for quality problems - may offer a solution, but a risk is strategic gaming: authors making minimal changes to pass automated checks without fixing the underlying problem. This study investigates how authors could game ASTs, whether gaming leaves detectable traces, and whether risk differs across tool types. An expert workshop, pilot study, and pre-registered experiment with ~240 researchers produces the first empirical evidence on AST gaming, with actionable guidance for journals.