The myth of scientific research is that it involves an exacting, methodical approach to uncovering the truth. But in reality, science is a lot messier and fraught with human error—and that messiness extends to scientific publishing.
Is AI going to replace humans in the peer review process? This interview suggest probably not but there might be value in blending smart computer systems with a knowledgeable expert.
.
But what if your reviewer were an intelligent machine? For several years now the world of academic publishing has been flirting with the idea of using artificial intelligence systems as part of the peer-review process. For example, A.I. would solve the problem of reviewer bias and could detect fraudulent data. But others argue that allowing an A.I. system to be the gatekeeper of new scientific knowledge is a dangerous step to take. Adam Marcus, co-founder of the blog Retraction Watch, joins us to discuss the role that A.I. could have in scientific publishing.
.