Lixina E.V.¹ (Penza, Russian Federation) – lev330@yandex.ru; Galimullina N.M.² (Kazan Russian Federation) – nadiyagalimullina@yandex.ru; Vagaeva O.A.¹ (Penza, Russian Federation) – yurmashevj@inbox.ru

¹Penza State Technological University

²Kazan National Research Technical University named after A.N. Tupolev-KAI

Abstract. Artificial intelligence technologies in modern realities are actively used in the field of science and education, in particular, as an auxiliary tool for the preparation of scientific publications. Specialized resources designed to solve the applied tasks of selecting literature on a topic, designing scientific papers, and verifying the validity of citations are complemented by platforms that allow reviewing scientific papers. These trends lead to the need for a scientific discussion on the prospects and possible difficulties of using artificial systems as an alternative or complement to the human expertise of works created by professional historians or students of the designated field of study. The subject of this study is the possibilities and limitations of using such a specialized tool as Thesify.ai for reviewing historical works. The research methodology includes work with theoretical sources using analysis, synthesis, generalization and systematization, and a method for modeling the reviewers’ work process using artificial intelligence technologies. The main empirical method consists in a comparative analysis of reviews created by professional experts, and automated, using a resource Thesify.ai. The novelty of the study consists in comparing the results of feedback from professional experts and neural networks. At the same time, the involved reviewers were able to formulate meaningful comments, some of which coincided with each other (insufficient source base, including archival data). Analysis of the reviews compiled Thesify.ai, allowed us to conclude that the neural network’s observations were not sufficiently accurate in terms of content, did not take into account the specifics of historical research and the orientation of reviews to evaluate the formal features and structure of scientific work. The applied recommendation based on the results of the study is that despite the fact that the use of artificial intelligence in reviewing articles significantly increases the accuracy and speed of reviews, reduces resource costs and improves the overall level of published materials, it must be borne in mind that any automatic tools are auxiliary tools and require control by qualified reviewers.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, neural network, AI platform, scientific tools, review, review, historical research, archival data, structure of a scientific article, formal requirements.

References:

1. Wang, L., & Tahamtan, I. (2022). Global peer review timing analysis 2015–2022. Scientific Publishing Today, 14(3), 167–184.
2. Naseem, U., Razzak, I., Musial, K., & Imran, M. (2021). Transforming healthcare with AI: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Access, 9, 118858–118866.
3. Yumashova, Yu. Yu. (2025). On the application of artificial intelligence in historical research. Historical Informatics, (1), 95–121. https://doi.org/10.7256/2585-7797.2025.1.73578
4. Vagaeva, O. A., Liksina, E. V., & Galimullina, N. M. (2025). Problems and prospects of using artificial intelligence in writing graduation qualifying papers. CITISE, 1 (43), 623–639. (In Russian). https://www.elibrary.ru/vqryvn
5. Martinez-Garcia, P., Wang, L., & Ahmed, K. (2023). Cross-language literature analysis capabilities of AI review systems. Digital Scientific Review, 19(2), 234–249.
6. Khan, M. K., Ferdous, J., Murshed, G., & Hossain, S. B. (2025). Use of artificial intelligence in scientific writing. Mymensingh Medical Journal, 34(2), 592–597.
7. Semennikov, A. V. (2024). AI: How it changes education and science in the era of digital transformation. Economics and Management: Problems, Solutions, 7(147), 84–89. (In Russian).
8. Ivanova, L. A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in writing scientific articles: A positive or harmful factor? CredeExperto: Transport, Society, Education, Language, (4), 6–17. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.51955/2312-1327_2024_4_6
9. Zhang, H., & Liu, R. (2023). Comparative accuracy of AI and human methodological review. Research Evaluation Studies, 28(1), 34–52.
10. Anderson, K., Wilson, R., & Chen, M. (2023). Statistical validation accuracy in AI versus human review systems. Journal of Scientific Validation, 45(3), 234–251.
11. Reynolds, M., & Chen, B. (2022). Statistical error detection rates in human peer review. Research Validation Studies, 9(2), 145–162.
12. Daoudi, M. (2025). Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints. Discover Education, 4, Article 241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00696-z
13. Mukataev, T. I., Akzhanova, Zh. A., Toksynov, Sh. M., & Tulkybay, D. A. (2024). The future of scientific publications: How artificial intelligence changes the peer review process and knowledge dissemination. In Innovative Discourse on the Development of Modern Science. Proceedings of the XXI International Scientific-Practical Conference (pp. 42–47). Petrozavodsk. (In Russian).
14. Maturo, F., Porreca, A., & Porreca, A. (2025). The risks of artificial intelligence in research: Ethical and methodological challenges in the peer review process. AI Ethics, 5, 5389–5396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00775-9
15. Yamashov, T. P. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence in writing scientific papers: Opportunities and threats. Trends in the Development of Science and Education, (112-1), 166–169. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18411/trnio-08-2024-49
16. Jeschke, J. M., Lokatis, S., Bartram, I., & Tockner, K. (2021). Knowledge in the dark: Scientific challenges and ways forward. FACETS, 6(1), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0007
17. Roscher, R., Bohn, B., Duarte, M. F., & Garcke, J. (2020). Explainable machine learning for scientific insights and discoveries. IEEE Access, 8, 42200–42216. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2976199
18. Al Samhori, A. R., & Alnaimat, F. (2024). Artificial intelligence in writing and research: Ethical implications and best practices. Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics, 5(4), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2024.5.4.02
19. Shai, F. (2025). Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process: Towards a hybrid approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 44, 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2445575
20. Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8

For citation: Liksina, E. V., Galimullina, N. M., & Vagaeva, O. A. (2026). The use of artificial intelligence technologies in the analysis of historical research (based on Thesify.ai). CITISE, 2, 77-88. (In Russian).