The Scale of the Submission Increase
In the first quarter of 2026, journals using the ScholarOne Manuscripts platform recorded a 33 percent rise in submissions compared with the same period in 2025. This figure more than doubled the 17 percent year-over-year growth observed in 2025. The platform, operated by Silverchair, handles manuscript submission and peer-review workflows for thousands of academic journals worldwide.
Drivers Behind the Surge
Analysts attribute much of the acceleration to generative artificial intelligence tools that have shortened the time required to draft, revise, and format manuscripts. Researchers report using large-language models for literature synthesis, language polishing, and even initial data interpretation. One major management journal documented a 42 percent increase in submissions since the late-2022 release of ChatGPT, with the steepest rise occurring after 2024.
Additional factors include expanded global research output, particularly from institutions in Asia, and the continued growth of open-access publishing models that lower barriers for authors. Paper-mill operations that produce low-quality or fabricated manuscripts have also contributed to volume, though their precise share remains difficult to quantify.
Impact on Editorial Workflows
Editorial offices have responded by tightening desk-rejection criteria. Manuscripts that once advanced to external review now face earlier screening for scope fit, methodological rigor, and basic integrity checks. Reviewers, already a scarce resource, receive more invitations than in prior years. Data from ScholarOne show that while the reviewer pool expanded 54 percent between 2018 and 2026, the number of review invitations more than doubled, and acceptance rates fell from 43 percent to 22 percent over the same span.
Peer-Review Capacity and Fatigue
The 2026 Future of Peer Review Report, released by Silverchair, draws on eight years of platform data, surveys of more than 2,000 researchers, and expert interviews. It documents longer turnaround times and higher rates of reviewer decline. Early-career researchers in particular report being asked to review more frequently while still establishing their own publication records. Journals have begun experimenting with reviewer recognition programs, including public acknowledgments and limited continuing-education credits, yet participation remains voluntary and unpaid in most disciplines.
Photo by Estée Janssens on Unsplash
AI Policies and Transparency Gaps
More than 70 percent of journals now maintain explicit policies on generative-AI use, typically requiring disclosure when tools assist with writing or analysis. A large-scale study of over 5,000 journals and 5.2 million papers found, however, that these policies have not slowed AI adoption. Full-text analysis of 164,000 post-2023 publications revealed that only about 0.1 percent explicitly disclosed AI assistance. Growth in AI-assisted writing appears highest in physical sciences and in journals based outside English-speaking countries.
Quality and Integrity Concerns
Editors report an increase in submissions containing repetitive phrasing, unverifiable citations, or statistically implausible results. Automated screening tools integrated into ScholarOne now flag potential image manipulation, text overlap, and statistical anomalies at submission. Publishers emphasize that these tools supplement, rather than replace, human judgment. Several societies have issued joint statements urging authors to retain full responsibility for content accuracy regardless of tool assistance.
Regional and Disciplinary Variations
Submission growth has not been uniform. Journals in engineering and computer science recorded some of the largest percentage increases, consistent with rapid AI-tool uptake in those fields. Humanities and social-science titles experienced more modest rises, though still above historical averages. Submissions from authors affiliated with institutions in mainland China and India continued to climb, reflecting broader trends in research investment and international collaboration.
Publisher and Platform Responses
Silverchair has outlined 2026 platform enhancements focused on automated integrity screening, streamlined reviewer matching, and editor dashboards that surface high-risk submissions earlier. Other vendors are testing cascade-review models that allow rejected manuscripts to transfer to more suitable journals with reviewer comments intact. Some publishers are piloting compensated review programs or hybrid human-AI review workflows, though widespread adoption remains limited.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Implications for Researchers and Institutions
Authors now face longer average decision timelines and higher desk-rejection rates. Successful submissions increasingly emphasize clear novelty statements, robust methodological documentation, and explicit discussion of any AI assistance. University promotion and tenure committees are beginning to weigh publication quality metrics more heavily than raw counts. Librarians and research offices report rising demand for workshops on responsible AI use and manuscript-preparation best practices.
Future Outlook and Recommended Actions
Industry observers expect submission volumes to remain elevated through 2027 as AI tools mature and global research capacity expands. Sustainable solutions will likely combine technological safeguards, revised incentive structures for reviewers, and clearer norms around AI disclosure. Journals that communicate transparent criteria and provide constructive feedback at every stage appear better positioned to maintain trust with authors. Researchers are advised to verify journal scope and policies before submission, retain detailed records of any AI tool use, and prioritize methodological transparency to improve chances of advancing past initial screening.