MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412015577 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10061

AI in scientific writing and publishing: A call for critical engagement

2025· article· en· W4412015577 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Frangou, Umberto Volpe, Andrea Fiorillo

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingScientific publishingPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming nearly every domain of science, and scholarly publishing is no exception. From automated language editing to machine-assisted peer review and large-scale content analysis, AI tools are increasingly embedded in scientific writing and publishing. The response from the scientific community has ranged from cautious optimism to outright skepticism. This viewpoint aims to articulate an editorial perspective on the integration of AI into scientific writing and publishing, evaluating both the opportunities and tensions that arise, and offering principles for navigating the road ahead.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207