Today I’m talking to Samantha Curle from the University of Bath about her recent article, Generative AI and the future of writing for publication: insights from applied linguistics journal editors. The peer review process is under increasing strain. With the explosion of submissions to academic journals since ChatGPT became available to all, editorial boards are struggling to keep pace. Peer reviewers are in short supply, and this has prompted (pardon the pun) an increased use of AI in the review process itself, leading to concerns that some articles may be making it to print without having been subjected to the appropriate level of scrutiny. Samantha and I dig into the data from her study of journal editors and discuss the cracks that are appearing in the system. We also talk about pressure to publish, questionable research practices, the replication crisis, opaque data sets, the future of publishing and more. Samantha also offers advice to teacher researchers looking to publish, and her plans for future projects. Guest bio Samantha Curle is a Reader in Applied Linguistics at the University of Bath & Adjunct Professor at Khazar University, Azerbaijan. She is Co-founder of the Cambridge ReachSci Mini-PhD on Multilingual Education & a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy & the Royal Society of Arts. She read for her DPhil in Education (Applied Linguistics) at the University of Oxford, having previously read for two MSc degrees there. Her research focuses on English Medium Instruction (EMI) in higher education, examining factors that influence academic achievement, such as English proficiency & psychological constructs. Her research spans across four continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, South America) and she has published in journals such as Language Teaching & Journal of Engineering Education. References Moorhouse, B., Consoli, S. and Curle, S. (2025). Generative AI and the future of writing for publication: insights from applied linguistics journal editors. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2025-0021 Samantha’s Research Gate profile https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samantha-Curle Follow Samantha on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/samanthacurle/ Further reading Hinz, A. (2025). Navigating Generative AI in Academic Publishing: An Interview With Benjamin Luke Moorhouse. De Gruyter Conversations. Available at: https://blog.degruyter.com/navigating-generative-ai-in-academic-publishing-an-interview-with-benjamin-luke-moorhouse/ Gibney, E. (2025) Scientists hide messages in papers to game AI peer review. Nature. Available at:doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02172-y Kurzgesagt - In a nutshell. (2025). AI Slop is destroying the internet. [Video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0 [Accessed 16th October 2025]. Simons, J. (2024) Harvard’s Gino Report Reveals How A Dataset Was Altered. Data Colada. Available at: https://datacolada.org/118 [Accessed 11th August 2025] Timecodes 00:00 Introduction 01:49 Samantha Curle 06:22 The spike in submissions 11:05 Why the peer review process was already struggling 13:09 AI generated reviews 15:50 The importance of rigorous peer review 24:31 Rethinking the process 29:03 Questionable research practices 34:05 What has changed in the wake of the replication crisis? 35:34 The difficulty of accessing data sets 40:35 Who can instigate change? 44:07 Advice for teachers looking to publish 48:39 Samantha’s future projects

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related