March 2023 | Oceanography
By publication time for this Quarterdeck column, ChatGPT
will already be old news. When the first stories about this arti-
ficial intelligence (AI) language tool came out early this year,
much of the discussion was focused on how the classroom might
change if non-beings can write credible essays. Instructors cov-
ering the spectrum of student ages questioned whether stu-
dents who handed off assignments to robots would still learn to
express themselves in writing. Some schools considered banning
ChatGPT, though how that would work is not clear, while some
instructors began to ask students to hand write their assignments.
Lately, news coverage about ChatGPT has turned toward the
scarier conversations people are having with the language robot.
Despite initial guardrails built into the platform, it appears that
ChatGPT can be tricked quite easily into having darker discus-
sions. For my part, instead of trying to be clever with this new
tool, I decided to ask it a simple question pertinent to my work as
editor of this journal: How might ChatGPT affect scientific pub-
lishing? I enlisted TOS Executive Director Jenny Ramarui, ever
on top of the latest technology, to put the question to ChatGPT
for me. Here is the robot’s response:
As an AI language model, ChatGPT can potentially change the
science publishing industry in a number of ways, although the full
extent of this change is difficult to predict. Here are a few potential
ways in which ChatGPT could have an impact:
1. Improved accuracy and quality of scientific writing: One of the
major advantages of using an AI language model like ChatGPT
in scientific publishing is that it can help improve the accuracy
and quality of scientific writing. ChatGPT can suggest edits,
correct grammar and syntax errors, and provide feedback on
writing style and clarity, helping authors to produce more pol-
ished and error-free manuscripts.
2. Faster review and turnaround times: Peer review is a critical
component of the scientific publishing process, but it can be a
time-consuming and sometimes subjective process. AI language
models like ChatGPT could potentially help speed up the review
process by automatically identifying potential issues with a
manuscript and providing feedback to reviewers. This could
lead to faster turnaround times for reviews and ultimately,
faster publication times.
3. More accessible and personalized scientific writing: Another
potential benefit of using an AI language model like ChatGPT
in scientific publishing is that it could help make scientific
writing more accessible and personalized. ChatGPT could be
used to automatically generate summaries of scientific papers in
plain language, making the research more accessible to a wider
audience. Additionally, ChatGPT could be used to tailor the
language and writing style of scientific papers to specific audi-
ences or readers, making the research more engaging and easier
to understand.
4. New forms of scientific writing and research: Finally, AI lan-
guage models like ChatGPT could potentially lead to new forms
of scientific writing and research. For example, ChatGPT could
be used to generate new hypotheses or research questions based
on existing data or to explore alternative explanations for exist-
ing findings. Additionally, ChatGPT could be used to generate
new forms of data visualization or to create interactive scien-
tific content that engages readers in new ways.
Language tools such as ChatGPT are no doubt here to stay,
and they can be helpful if used with caution. While speeding up
peer review is a noble goal, simply identifying potential issues
is only the first step in the review process. Good peer reviewers
would read manuscripts more than once. In addition to checking
whether the issues AI flagged were indeed valid, they would use
their deep subject knowledge to identify other, more nuanced
problems. This process still takes time. For scientists burdened
with numerous peer review requests, will AI wind up being a
substitute for truly scrutinizing a manuscript? Can an article be
called “peer reviewed” if the review was largely or completely
conducted by AI? If two or three reviewers rely on AI to review
the same manuscript, will all three reviews largely be the same?
If that were the case, our science would be the loser.
ChatGPT is an alluring tool. It took no more than a minute
to answer my question about scientific publishing. If I proposed
a subject, it could probably write a Quarterdeck column in the
same amount of time. But it is no substitute for human experi-
ence and judgment. For the publishing industry and our scien-
tific community, these new and emerging AI language platforms
generate as many questions as answers.
ARTICLE DOI. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2023.113
QUARTERDECK
How Might Artificial Intelligence
Affect Scientific Publishing?
Ellen S. Kappel, Editor