aceComparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study
Objectives Increasing manuscript volume has strained peer review, prompting interest in artificial intelligence (AI) as a supportive tool. We evaluated DeepSeek R1 as a structured peer reviewer of neurosurgical case-based manuscripts and compared its scoring patterns with those of an experienced editor and student reviewers. Design Exploratory, cross-sectional comparative study using a convenience sample of consecutively submitted manuscripts. Setting Single skull-base neurosurgical journal during a 6-month subm…
In a pilot of 11 neurosurgical manuscripts, DeepSeek R1 gave systematically higher subjective ratings than human reviewers, notably for Novelty, which limits its reliability as an unsupervised peer reviewer.
The study is exploratory and pilot-scale, using a convenience sample of 11 manuscripts from a single journal and one experienced reviewer, so conclusions about wider use are tentative.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedJournal of Neurological Surgery Reports2026-10-09
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1447, v1: “Comparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study.” Truvace, 2026-10-15. /record/TRV-2026-1447 (accessed at citation time). sha256 ace0f521e95b1ec4…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1447 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.