Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This work synthesizes 230 publications and institutional records to model the adversarial co-evolution between generative AI research production and automated peer review. Treating AI-assisted generation and evaluation as independent capabilities obscures a self-reinforcing arms race where high-volume paper generation compels reviewer automation that is inherently susceptible to exploitation. While empirical evidence strongly validates current production scaling, automated evaluation, and manipulation dynamics, institutional safeguards risk driving sophisticated evasion tactics and corrupting the downstream scientific record.
Automating peer review to survive the flood of AI-generated papers creates an exploitable adversarial loop, incentivizing authors to game predictable evaluators and ultimately corrupting the downstream corpus used to train future frontier models.
Generative and agentic AI are reshaping both the production and evaluation of scientific research. These developments are often studied separately, as questions of how AI can produce research and how AI can review it. We argue that this separation misses an increasingly important feature of scholarly publishing: changes on one side alter the incentives, constraints, and behavior of the other. We synthesize 230 scholarly publications and institutional records using a taxonomy of six connected dynamics: production scaling, evaluation automation, evaluation manipulation, defense mechanisms and policy responses, evasion and side effects, and long-horizon ecosystem feedback. The literature shows an emerging progression in which cheaper and faster research production increases pressure on evaluation, AI-mediated evaluation becomes more scalable and repeatable, participants can exploit evaluator regularities, and institutions respond with technical safeguards and policy controls. These responses can in turn induce evasion, redistribute errors and workload, and shape the scholarly records reused by future research and evaluation systems. Evidence is strongest for production and evaluation at scale, reproducible manipulation, and institutional response, while post-policy adaptation and artifact-level long-horizon feedback remain less directly observed. This systems view shifts attention from isolated AI capabilities toward how scholarly actors and AI systems adapt to one another over time.
