Science (Science.org) editorial, 7/16/26: AI in scientific publishing: Slower, worse, and more expensive

[highplainsdem]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aek5570

There’s a saying in the management world, popularized by NASA administrator Daniel Goldin in the 1990s, that the goal of technological improvements is to make products faster, better, and cheaper. Although this strategy had some success in the aerospace industry, the zealots of artificial intelligence (AI) have been making the same argument regarding how it will transform work, claiming that so little human effort will be required that humanity will enter an era of radical abundance, free from disease, drudgery, and danger, among other benefits, leaving society with more time for creative pursuits. But history tells a different story. When machines began to increase productivity during the second industrial revolution, American engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management encouraged corporations to use surveillance to get employees to work harder and longer, an approach that exhausted and discouraged workers and led to the transfer of knowledge and any decision-making from workers to management, while enriching the profits for only those at the top. Yet, it remains foundational to the American economic enterprise. Indeed, scientific publishing is starting to experience some Taylorism with the insertion of AI. Rigorous human checking of AI-generated research papers is creating bottlenecks as publishers strive to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The challenge is requiring even more human effort, making the whole endeavor slower and more expensive.

Recently, the ability of large language models (LLMs) to predict protein structures and to accelerate the discovery of new materials has revolutionized both fields. New AI agents can now carry out many aspects of research design and analysis. But there is a dark side. A recent paper describes how an LLM “still struggles in areas requiring nuanced clinical judgment, experimental reasoning, or deep biological thinking and synthesis.” In addition, some of these agents are more likely than humans to engage in what amounts to research misconduct such as cherry-picking data and manipulating statistical analyses until a desired result is achieved. When the agents then generate papers describing the findings, they are likely to make more errors, including hallucinating references, some of which have already made their way into the literature.

-snip-

The creation of robust human-curated scientific literature has never been more crucial. The propagation of AI slop in the scientific record and generally on the internet is making science less trustworthy. But in parallel, AI enthusiasts are telling the world that the remedies should all be easy to automate, creating the impression that journals can not only catch more errors but also do it more efficiently and cheaply. That’s not the reality for scientific publishing right now or likely in the future. Other workplaces, such as warehouses and trucking, are experiencing the similar challenges of surveillance in the face of the need for greater human effort, which again, keeps American AI-driven productivity closer to Taylorism than to Goldin’s mantra. The history of Taylorism indicates that society should fight to protect the welfare and agency of those being pushed to do too much by technology in the name of production.

If the scientific community fails to address the influence of AI, then authentic research and validated findings will slow down to an expensive trickle into established knowledge, and the opportunities for flawed or fabricated information to be seen as reality will grow—all while AI profiteers cash in.

More at the link.

This is from the editor-in-chief of Science - https://www.aaas.org/person/holden-thorp - and it's damning in its assessment of the harm AI is doing.

And remember - this damage to scientific publishing has happened in just a few years.

The AI bros knew it was happening. They didn't care. They are, as the editor of Science says, profiteers.