Iโve given Claude Opus various published papers (and my own unpublished ones) and asked it to review them. (Donโt panicโIโm not uploading confidential manuscripts.)
The reviews it produces are excellent. It finds statistical errors, internal contradictions, and conceptual confusions that human reviewers miss; it provides useful suggestions; it has a good sense of what counts as significant and novel and what doesnโt; and itโs generous in its appreciation for what the authors get right. And it doesnโt suffer from the strong โmyside biasโ humans have; it doesnโt recommend rejection because the author didnโt cite it enough; it doesnโt insult the authors; and it doesnโt agree to write a review and then never send anything in.
As a journal editor, Iโm not sure what to do with this. If I gave up on human reviewers and used GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Opus instead, my bosses would fire me, probably rightfully so. The only constructive thing I can recommend is that, before submitting something to a journal, researchers and scholars use this tremendously valuable resource. (Just donโt tell the models that itโs your paper, because they do suffer from sycophancy.)