哈佛研究：Claude Opus 4.8 写的论文评审全面超过人类专家
哈佛用 1124 篇论文做了盲测，Claude Opus 4.8 写的评审错误率只有人类的三分之一，做科研的可以看看这套流程。
哈佛团队用 rapidPeer 的 134 份专家评审做对照，让 Claude Opus 4.8 对同样的 1124 篇论文写评审。GPT-5.5 在 132 组盲评配对中全部选了 AI 评审，3 位前期刊编辑则 87% 选 AI。AI 评审中只有 5.5% 的论断有错，人类评审这一数字是 15.9%。研究者建议团队用 AI 做第一轮完整评审，人类保留最终决定权。
Massive. New Harvard study finds that AI-written paper reviews now beat the best human peer reviews on every measure the authors tested.
Peer review is slow and often misses errors. Earlier studies concluded AI should only assist human reviewers, not replace them.
They used 134 reviews from rapidPeer, a Harvard service that pays expert reviewers well. Claude Opus 4.8 reviewed the same 1124 papers, and GPT-5.5 plus 3 former journal editors judged the pairs blind.
GPT-5.5 picked the AI review in all 132 decided pairs, and the editors picked it 87% of the time. Only 5.5% of the AI's claims about the paper were wrong, versus 15.9% for the human reviews.
Teams that depend on expert critique can now let AI do the first full review pass, and keep a human for the final decision.
