[jperoutek]

To me, this is the real question. One of the purposes of the peer-review is to validate and verify results, which was clearly not done to a great extent here. Perhaps the reviewers were also using some type of AI?

[favorited]

The reviewers are cited as part of the publication:

Binsila B. Krishnan, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (ICAR), India

Jingbo Dai, Northwestern Medicine, United States

[hermitcrab]

From a quick Google, they appear to be real people.

[gs17]

Frontiers has an explicit rule against that, although I doubt any reviewer would admit to it.

[hermitcrab]

Perhaps the reviewer was an AI. Which gives a new spin to 'peer review'.

[dexzod]

makes sense, because the peer of AI can only be AI