In Blog

Can AI algorithms are not ready to replace science editors?

Anyone familiar with cell culture will instantly recognise the issue in this excerpt. “Roswell Park Memorial Institute 1640” (commonly “RPMI 1640”) refers to a cell culture medium named after the institute where it was developed in the 1960s. It’s highly unlikely that researchers based in Japan cultured their cells there!

So, how did such a statement find its way into the Methods section of a research manuscript? Well, this is just one of several glaring errors introduced by an artificial intelligence (AI)-based editing tool we tested.

AI: A Buzzword with Big Promises

AI is certainly the buzzword of the year, making its mark across sectors with promises of transformative potential. For scientists, one of the most exciting prospects is AI’s ability to extract meaningful insights from big datasets—a capability poised to revolutionise healthcare in the coming years. However, AI currently risks overpromising, with developers claiming their algorithms can handle tasks they’re not yet ready for, at least in untrained hands. 

Exploring AI Tools for Scientific Editing

Over the past few months, I trialled several AI applications that made bold claims in the editing arena—perfect grammar, optimised sentences, native-level English, and even advanced features like paraphrasing, plagiarism prevention and editorial reports. These features are particularly appealing given that most scientific articles (up to 98%) are published in English, despite fewer than 20% of the global population being native speakers.

To fully explore these tools, I had to commit to paid subscriptions, as free versions were significantly limited. I approached this investment with optimism, hoping the results would justify the cost. To ensure fairness and avoid endorsing or discouraging specific tools, I’ve anonymised the names of the AI services tested. If you’re interested in learning more about any of them, feel free to reach out privately for details. Read on for an overview.

Anonymised AI Tools: The Good, The Bad, and The Tedious

Tool 1: Initially promising with extra features like editorial reports, but these turned out to be basic grammatical summaries, tediously listed one by one. Its MS Word add-in required manually accepting each change, massively slowing the process and limiting its utility.

Tools 2 and 3: Provided tracked changes in MS Word, making them more user-friendly than Tool 1. However, they introduced conceptual and grammatical errors, didn’t refine text for wordiness, and failed to follow conventions of scientific writing in the biomedical sciences. Overall, a disappointment.

Tool 4: The simplest of all, delivering quick edits to a document of thousands of words in under a minute, but limited to few, minor grammatical tweaks without addressing substantial issues.

Tool 5: A hybrid of AI and human editing at a premium cost. This one I thought had the potential to be a winner. Unfortunately, the human editing offered little beyond basic grammar corrections and even introduced errors without adding comments to flag unresolved issues. For example:

In this excerpt, edits were made without any accompanying comments, implying the final text was correct. However, the edited sentence remains grammatically incorrect, poorly constructed, and unclear in meaning. 

The Risks of Over-Reliance on AI

These experiences highlight the need for caution when using AI for editing, as it seems that even costly premium services often fall short of the nuanced demands of scientific writing. While AI tools promise polished grammar and language, I found that they mainly address surface-level issues like punctuation or typographical errors, akin to standard grammar checkers, and require manual oversight to ensure accuracy. Errors introduced by AI—or even human editors—can critically alter meaning, underscoring the importance of thorough review and sound judgement in scientific editing. For example:

Without reading the edited text with the tracked changes showing, you might not readily spot this error in meaning. The authors intended to say that Telmisartan is a partial PPAR-γ agonist, but the text has been edited to say that Telmisartan was chosen partly because it is a PPAY- γ agonist. In this case, the sentence would be more accurate if it had been left alone!

Evolving but Not Yet Ready

So what’s my take home message? AI algorithms for editing scientific content are still evolving. While they show great potential for improving grammar and language accuracy, and many are financially accessible, the tools I tested are far from perfect. Polished grammar, while important, is rarely the deciding factor in effectively pitching your manuscript or funding proposal. Success lies in how you present and frame your findings—with accuracy, clarity, and a compelling narrative.

If you do choose to use AI for editing or writing, proceed with caution and thoroughly review the results. Additionally, when using AI generative tools, remember that the phrasing of your commands significantly influences the output. “Talking” to AI effectively is a skill that requires practice and precision.

—

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of any company, organisation, employer, or other entity. The content is provided for informational purposes only and is based on the author’s personal experiences and opinions. The author makes no representations regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented or linked to in this article and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or availability of the information. The author assumes no responsibility for any losses, injuries, or damages resulting from the use or display of this information.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The author of this article is an Editor for Insight Editing London, an editing services company. Every effort has been made to provide a fair and unbiased overview of other editing services; however, readers should be aware of this potential conflict of interest. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Insight Editing London. The author receives no direct financial benefit from discussing other editing services in this article.

In Blog

The importance of diversifying citations

A News article in Nature (Kozlov, 2022) highlighted an important issue: research from the global South is largely ignored. In the article, Kozlov raises the concerns of African researchers whose work on monkeypox and warnings of rising cases had been uncited and disregarded. Now that the world is facing a monkeypox outbreak that the World Health Organization’s Director, Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus has called a “public health emergency of international concern” (WHO, 2022) those African researchers’ work is getting attention.

The need to diversify our reading and to decolonise research is exposed by the current monkeypox public health concern, but the issue is not new. Boyes (2019) illustrated the problem dramatically when he used the Worldmapper (worldmapper.org) tools to re-draw a map of the world, or cartogram, where regions are scaled according to the number of research articles used in public health teaching. Notably, Africa was almost non-existent on the cartogram, which was dominated by the United States of America, the UK and Europe. Not only does this practice limit our knowledge and understanding of emerging health challenges, but it also impacts on how we apply the findings from research carried out in very limited geographic and cultural spaces. The cultures of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) nations (Heinrich, Heine, and Norenzayan, 2010), responsible for most of the social, behavioural and scientific research cited and applied, are very different from the cultures of the rest of the world. As the consequences of anthropogenic accelerated climate change are becoming more apparent, it is vital that we acknowledge and respect research from around the globe if we are to be prepared for the challenges and mitigate the risks of the hazards we will face.

Why is research from the global South largely disregarded? It might be argued that the knowledge generation is imbalanced so that output from the global North dominates. Czerniewicz published an article in The Conversation (2015) where she addressed the very unequal nature of scientific knowledge creation and exchange, using data of numbers of research papers published by region to draw a very similar looking cartogram to that of Boyes (2019).  Until very recently when China overtook the United States of America in producing the most cited papers in the period 2018-2020 (Brainard and Normile, 2022), most knowledge had been generated (and cited) by researchers in the United States of America, the UK and Europe. However, another factor that contributes to the narrow citation of research works is perhaps driven by the need for rapid dissemination of research findings and work pressures: researchers cite the work of other researchers they know, know of, have met at conferences, collaborate with, have previously cited, or whose work was cited by someone else. This is something we can overcome by broadening our reading lists and research networks; becoming uncomfortable in new situations; fostering true collaborations of researchers in WEIRD with researchers in non-WEIRD countries. We need to face global challenges as a global community. Our challenge begins with reading and citing work from people outside of our current networks, and preferably from a non-WEIRD country.

Laura Roden, PhD

References

Boyes, 2019 (https://realkm.com/2019/12/13/new-initiatives-begin-decolonising-research-libraries-and-knowledge-systems-but-what-about-decolonising-km [15/08/2022]

Brainard, J., Normile, D (2022) China rises to first place in most cited papers. Science 377, 799 doi: 10.1126/science.ade4585

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010 Jun;33(2-3):61-83; discussion 83-135. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. Epub 2010 Jun 15.

Kozlov, M. (2022) Monkeypox in Africa: the science the world ignored Nature 607, 17-18 doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01686-z

Czerniewicz, L. (2015) It’s time to redraw the world’s very unequal knowledge map. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-redraw-the-worlds-very-unequal-knowledge-map-44206

WHO (2022) WHO Director-General’s statement at the press conference following IHR Emergency Committee regarding the multi-country outbreak of monkeypox – 23 July 2022 https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-statement-on-the-press-conference-following-IHR-emergency-committee-regarding-the-multi–country-outbreak-of-monkeypox–23-july-2022

In Client successes

A new study by Dandan Pi and colleagues at Chongqing Medical University unveils the role of dysregulated RAS in pediatric sepsis

In July this year, Dandan Pi and colleagues published their study on the role of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in pediatric sepsis in the leading journal Shock.

Pediatric sepsis is a life-threatening condition where the body’s response to infection leads to widespread inflammation and organ dysfunction. The RAS, a critical hormone system regulating blood pressure and fluid balance, is often disrupted during sepsis, worsening its severity by contributing to vascular instability, impaired immune response, and reduced organ perfusion. This study provides new insights into how RAS dysfunction influences the progression of sepsis in children, with potential implications for developing targeted treatment strategies.

Key findings include:

  1. Increased Renin Levels: Serum renin concentrations were significantly higher in sepsis patients compared to healthy controls.
  2. Decreased Angiotensin (1-7) Levels: Patients with sepsis exhibited lower levels of angiotensin (1-7), suggesting its potential as a biomarker for sepsis severity.
  3. Predictive Value: The combination of serum renin, angiotensin (1-7), and procalcitonin resulted in a diagnostic model with an AUROC of 0.87, indicating strong predictive accuracy for patient outcomes.

This research highlights the potential of circulating renin and angiotensin (1-7) as valuable biomarkers for pediatric sepsis, paving the way for improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to manage this critical condition in vulnerable young patients.

Join us in congratulating the authors on this groundbreaking work that enhances our understanding of pediatric sepsis! 🙌

For the full study, check it out here: Shock (lww.com)

In Client successes

A systematic review and meta-analysis from Sidra Medicine researchers highlights the link between IL-33, obesity and type 2 diabetes

We are delighted to offer our congratulations to Ghalia Missous and Nicholas van Panhuys for their latest publication on the role of Interleukin-33 (IL-33) in obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D)! 🌍✨

As we continue to face the rising prevalence of obesity and T2D worldwide, innovative research is essential for developing novel interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis delves into IL-33 – a cytokine that plays a dual role in the body by both regulating inflammation and contributing to the immune system’s response. In recent years, it has been increasingly recognized for its involvement in metabolic diseases like obesity and T2D. Indeed, elevated levels of IL-33 have been linked to chronic low-grade inflammation, a hallmark of obesity and a driving factor in the development of insulin resistance, which underpins T2D.

This latest study, published in August this year in the American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, examined IL-33 levels across 18 studies, revealing critical insights, including the need for improved measurement methods to reduce heterogeneity in findings. These results are pivotal for enhancing our understanding of IL-33’s role in disease progression and guiding future research.

🔗 Check out the full study here: Circulating interleukin-33 levels in obesity and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis | American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism

Let’s celebrate this important work and encourage further exploration into the potential of IL-33 in combating obesity and T2D! 💡

In Client successes

New Review on the Multifaceted Roles of CD47! 🎉

Looking for some summer reading? Then I suggest the latest review on CD47, a receptor that is gaining increasing recognition for its versatile functions beyond its well-known role in preventing macrophage-mediated phagocytosis: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41418-024-01347-w

Published this July in Cell Death & Differentiation, this review delves deep into the emerging noncanonical roles of CD47, revealing its critical involvement in regulating processes such as proliferation, migration, apoptosis, differentiation, stress responses, and metabolism.

Key highlights from the review include:

  • An in-depth exploration of the cell-intrinsic signalling pathways regulated by CD47 across diverse cell types and environments.
  • Detailed discussion on pivotal pathways like PI3K/AKT, MAPK/ERK, and nitric oxide signalling, along with those involved in glucose, lipid, and mitochondrial metabolism.
  • Insights into how CD47’s interactions are often cell- and context-specific, adding layers of regulatory complexity.
  • The importance of these pathways in maintaining tissue homeostasis and the implications for understanding CD47’s role in various cancers.

Understanding these pathways not only broadens our knowledge of cellular processes but also paves the way for the development of innovative CD47-targeted therapies, especially given its dysregulation in numerous cancers.

Well done to the authors – @Ruhi Polara, @Raja Ganesan, @Stuart M. Pitson and @Nirmal Robinson – on their success! This review is sure to be an invaluable resource for researchers and clinicians alike.

#CD47 #CellBiology #CellSignaling #Review #InsightEditingLondon

In Blog

After the initial excitement of submitting your manuscript, the waiting period for feedback can be agonising. It’s fair to say that the peer review process can make you feel exposed and vulnerable! Just remember, as Stephen Jay Gould said, “Science, in the end, is an open process, and peer review is the principal mechanism by which the secrets of a new discovery can be revealed to everyone.”

In this blog post, Dr. Laura Roden provides us her perspective on how best to handle and progress through peer reivew:

Handling Reviewer Feedback

Receiving feedback can be daunting, especially if it’s not an outright acceptance. Keep in mind that a rare few experience the joy of a first-time acceptance. Instead, most researchers face the more common outcomes of ‘revise and resubmit’ or ‘reject’. In fact, according to a study by Elsevier (Herbert, 2020), the average eventual acceptance rate across 2,371 journals surveyed in 2017 was 32%.

So, rejection is common but it can still feel particularly tough if it’s your first rejection or if you were excited about sharing your findings. Remember, it’s important not to take it personally. Carefully read the feedback provided, and consider re-reading it after taking some time to process the outcome.

Strategies for Dealing with Rejection

  1. Understand the Reason for Rejection:
    • Your manuscript may not have been suitable for the journal. To minimise such rejections, carefully select target journals beforehand. 
  2. Prepare for Rejection:
    • Have a list of potential journals for your manuscript, ranked by preference, ready during the planning stage. This allows for a quick resubmission, softening the blow of rejection.
  3. Seek Expert Advice:
    • The Insight Editing team can help you with journal selection and provide alternative options if your first-choice journal rejects your manuscript!

Appealing a Rejection

If you believe a rejection is unjust, you have the option to appeal. However, it’s wise to wait at least 24 hours before responding. This allows you to reflect on the decision and consult with co-authors or trusted colleagues. If you decide to appeal, your response should be calm and well-reasoned, clearly outlining why you believe the decision should be reconsidered.

Managing a ‘Revise and Resubmit’ Decision

A ‘revise and resubmit’ decision can also be challenging, especially if extensive revisions are required. Here’s how to handle it:

  1. Carefully Read the Feedback:
    • Take time to reflect on the feedback with your co-authors before starting the revisions.
  2. Maintain Professionalism:
    • Remember that reviewers are your peers. Their feedback is meant to improve the quality of your manuscript. Keep your responses respectful and polite.
  3. Address Reviewers’ Comments Thoughtfully:
    • If a reviewer missed information already in your manuscript, consider whether it was clearly presented. If something is unclear to a reviewer, it may also be unclear to readers.
    • If you disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, explain your reasoning politely, backing it up with evidence.
  4. Seek Expert Advice:
    • The Insight Editing London team aren’t just on hand for support before you submit you manuscript – we can also help you to prepare and polish your rebuttal so that it is calm, accurate, and objective. We’ll also check that your answers are sufficient, and that you have carefully updated your manuscript in line with the reviewer’s comments.

Remember: The peer review system plays a crucial role in ensuring the robustness and reliability of published work. As researchers, we participate in this system as both authors and reviewers. Remember to remain calm and professional in both roles so that you continue to contribute to the scientific community with integrity and respect.

Herbert, Rachel, Accept Me, Accept Me Not: What Do Journal Acceptance Rates Really Mean? (February 15, 2020). International Center for the Study of Research, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3526365 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3526365