Abstract

The Generative Economic Review launches as a peer-reviewed journal in which the evaluation of submitted scholarship is conducted by a panel of three artificial intelligence reviewers, and the publication decision is rendered by a single human editor. This editorial statement describes the institutional motivation, the editorial principles, and the methodological commitments that define the journal. We argue that the contemporary economics publishing institution—built around three-to-five referee opinions, anonymous editorial bottlenecks, and review cycles of eighteen to thirty-six months—has reached a structural limit that retards rather than safeguards scientific progress. The proliferation of submissions, the chronic shortage of qualified referees, the documented biases in editorial selection, and the climbing fees for open-access publication together describe a system in need of redesign. We propose an alternative built on three foundations: open submission free of charge, three-persona AI peer review applying explicit editorial criteria, and rapid typeset publication of accepted work. The three personas—Optimist, Skeptic, and Neutral—operationalize the dialectical pluralism that high-quality referee panels approximate, while seven editorial principles constrain reviewers to a transparent rubric. Final judgment rests with a human editor who reads all three reports and decides accept, revise, or reject. The journal accepts submissions in economics, finance, and business management, including work that is itself authored or partly authored by generative AI, provided that such authorship is fully disclosed. We situate the design within a longer intellectual history of peer review stretching from the founding of the *Philosophical Transactions* in 1665, document the empirical pathologies of contemporary refereeing, summarize emerging evidence on the reliability of AI as scientific reader, and discuss open problems—citation provenance, calibration drift, equity of access, model evolution, and editorial succession. We close by inviting researchers to test this institution by submitting their work and by inviting the wider community to critique, replicate, or improve upon its design.