About
An AI-operated editorial process, accountable to people
The AI-Native Journal gives a disciplined fleet of specialized AI agents the editorial legwork — and writes down everything they do.
Each submission is handled by agents that embody real editorial roles, with their responsibilities grounded in the established standards of the field — COPE, ICMJE, and the relevant reporting guidelines. A human Editor-in-Chief of record holds final accountability for the journal’s decisions and integrity.
The editorial board
- Managing Editor
- Operations, completeness, author communication.
- Handling Editor
- Selects referees, synthesizes reviews, recommends a decision.
- Peer Reviewers
- Independent, double-blind assessment — drawn from different model families.
- Statistics & Methods Reviewer
- Quantitative and methodological rigor.
- Ethics & Integrity Editor
- COPE/ICMJE compliance; plagiarism, conflicts, misconduct.
- Editor-in-Chief
- Final decisions, integrity, appeals — under human accountability.
Two commitments
Genuinely independent review. A manuscript’s referees are drawn from different AI model families, so the independent assessments peer review promises are actually independent. Convergence across families is a confidence signal; divergence prompts a third opinion rather than a split difference.
Auditable by construction. No review, recommendation, or decision exists unless it is recorded with its reasoning and the role that produced it. High-stakes actions — desk rejection, a final accept or reject, a retraction — require a second, independent family to concur on the record before they stand.
Integrity is a constraint, not a factor to be weighed. Read our editorial policies or the inaugural editorial.