The idea that a law student who on average barely possesses a working knowledge of the law should be trained in how to pass of his work to AI is ridiculous. Even conceding that AI is a useful tool - law students still need to in law school develop legal thinking and discipline. They need to know how to read a case, how to make an argument, how to negotiate terms in a contract, how to structure mergers, how to protect their clients. If all they are are paid prompters who cannot check or improve the AI output - they will be making themselves redundant. To the extent that NLS has tried to hold the line - they’re doing their students a service.

They do get paid in recommendation letters and admissions to foreign universities and consideration by foreign firms. If they want to write that they were an editor of a law review - they should have to earn it. This is clearly AI fraud that’s slipped through ! Editors should be ashamed and not write that they edited a law review on their CVs.

That is precisely what is wrong with legal scholarship and the profession. Wrong citations, methodologies or different results upon replication in natural sciences research lead to rejection. As lawyers, we know the importance of each word and punctuation of an authority in determining the law and its consequent contemporary real-world implications. Legal peer reviewers aren't even expected to replicate the results, but they still can't be bothered to check if an entire quoted para is wrongly cited. This is one of the reasons why the impact factor of legal journals is paltry compared to the natural sciences.
No peer reviewer in any field is paid. Thus, money clearly isn't the primary factor that determines whether a peer reviewer actually reviews. The contribution of a peer review towards the field and knowledge may be a more apt metric, as that contribution is definitely lower in law, evident through a metric like the impact factor.

The judgment provided by LegallyIndia relates to OMP. (COMM) 73/2016 delivered on 28.11.2016, while the citation "2022 SCC OnLine Del 120" in the article relates to O.M.P. (COMM) 153/2020 delivered on 12.01.2022, meaning they are different cases with the same party names. While mistakes are understandable, the onus on a legal peer reviewer increases when an entire paragraph is being quoted. The wrong citations clearly show shoddy peer review standards of NLSIR. Evidently, OP's claim is still true as the citation is wrong, which means it has not been peer-reviewed. Besides, we all know how unreliable Indian Kanoon is what its acceptability in courts is as compared to SCC OnLine.

I have read the article by Gautam Mohanty and Gaurav Rai. I think the article skillfully highlights the difference between loss of profit and loss of profitability in the computation of damages. A reviewer is not supposed to check each and every citation. As long as the arguments are valid, there is logical flow, and there is a scholarly contribution, the article is fit for publication.

Speaking from experience, if the editors and reviewers do use AI to supplement their own efforts, then these type of matters can be easily flagged. Otherwise, very few peer reviewers will take the trouble of checking every footnote. After all, they don't get paid for their work.

I have had the misfortune of reading 2 recent pieces published by NLSBLR and NLSIR, which have been cited hereunder. Neither had been actually peer-reviewed. The NLSBLR one was filled with assertions with absolutely unrelated citations. The NLSIR one quoted an entire paragraph of a judgment. When cross-checked against the given citation, it turned out not to appear in the actual text. Pathetic peer-review mechanisms. These two articles also show that the quality, too, has greatly decreased with the onslaught of AI assistance in legal scholarship.

NLSBLR Article: Footnote Nos. 5,9,10,17, etc. in Deepanshu (2025) “The Pitfalls of Dual Regulatory Oversight in CIRP- IBC, 2016 Vs. Competition Act, 2002”, National Law School Business Law Review- Vol. 11- Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at- https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsblr/vol11/iss2/3/

NLSIR Article: Footnote No. 54 on page 15, where the last paragraph cites National Highways Authority of India v Hindustan Construction Co Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 120, The excerpt purportedly quoted from the judgment does not appear in its actual text. Article: Mohanty, Gautam Mr and Rai, Gaurav (2025) "Delays, Disruptions, and Diminished Margins: Reassessing Loss Claims in Indian Construction Law," National Law School of India Review: Vol. 36: Iss. 1, Article 1. DOI: 10.55496/GWKE5324 Available at: https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol36/iss1/1