From time to time, editorial boards quit journals. It happens often enough that I usually don’t pay much attention. But the outgoing editors of the Journal of Human Evolution described a new complaint, involving – surprise! – generative AI.
In fall of 2023, for example, without consulting or informing the editors, Elsevier initiated the use of AI during production, creating article proofs devoid of capitalization of all proper nouns (e.g., formally recognized epochs, site names, countries, cities, genera, etc.) as well italics for genera and species. These AI changes reversed the accepted versions of papers that had already been properly formatted by the handling editors. This was highly embarrassing for the journal and resolution took six months and was achieved only through the persistent efforts of the editors. AI processing continues to be used and regularly reformats submitted manuscripts to change meaning and formatting and require extensive author and editor oversight during proof stage.
This is maddening, because it’s yet another example of gen AI creating problems, never solving them.
I am also baffled. Because usually I can at least understand why a publisher has done certain things. Often the explanation tracks back to, “Cut costs.”
But I cannot for the life of me figure out why a publisher would let a generative AI system loose on a completed, edited manuscript. I cannot believe that is in any way cost-saving.
Generative AI is notoriously expensive. And they were doing this to nominally completed manuscripts, added an additional layer of work. If it were in the hopes of saving costs eventually, you would think there would just be some internal testing, not being unleashed like a rabid raccoon on a working journal.
Nor do I think anyone with any publishing experience would believe it would improve the manuscript.
I am left absolutely confused by what Elsevier is thinking here. But moreover, I am am worried that other publishers are going to try the same thing and we just haven’t heard about it yet.
Other major publishers should see an opening here. They could get out and publicly promise academics that the job of final edit stays with human editors.
Unfortunately, I am having a hard time seeing this happening, as I suspect increasingly the heads of these companies see themselves as data and analytics companies more than publishing companies.
External links
Evolution journal editors resign en masse to protest Elsevier changes
No comments:
Post a Comment