I’ve given Claude Opus various published papers (and my own unpublished ones) and asked it to review them. (Don’t panic—I’m not uploading confidential manuscripts.) The reviews it produces are excellent. It finds statistical errors, internal contradictions, and conceptual confusions that human reviewers miss; it provides useful suggestions; it has a good sense of what counts as significant and novel and what doesn’t; and it’s generous in its appreciation for what the authors get right. And it doesn’t suffer from the strong “myside bias” humans have; it doesn’t recommend rejection because the author didn’t cite it enough; it doesn’t insult the authors; and it doesn’t agree to write a review and then never send anything in. As a journal editor, I’m not sure what to do with this. If I gave up on human reviewers and used GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Opus instead, my bosses would fire me, probably rightfully so. The only constructive thing I can recommend is that, before submitting something to a journal, researchers and scholars use this tremendously valuable resource. (Just don’t tell the models that it’s your paper, because they do suffer from sycophancy.)