AI And the Editors' Ghost: Who Is the Writer Now?
Saved in:
| Title: | AI And the Editors' Ghost: Who Is the Writer Now? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Clark, David1 (AUTHOR), Nicholas, David1 (AUTHOR) dave.nicholas@ciber‐research.com, Abrizah, Abdullah2 (AUTHOR), Akeroyd, John1 (AUTHOR), Revez, Jorge3 (AUTHOR), Rodríguez‐Bravo, Blanca4 (AUTHOR), Swigon, Marzena5 (AUTHOR), Polezhaeva, Tatyana6 (AUTHOR), Gere, Anne7 (AUTHOR), Herman, Eti1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Learned Publishing. Apr2026, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p1-13. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Artificial intelligence, Text summarization, Scholarly communication, Research personnel, Conversation analysis |
| Abstract: | This an exploration of the use of AI in research and writing. It builds upon the 'Harbingers' project, an international and longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) and scholarly communication. In the fourth phase of the project, we returned to the theme of AI, in particular AI as 'ghostwriter'. Our sources are transcripts of conversational, open‐form interviews with over 60 ECRs from Britain, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Russia, and other countries. For an initial analysis of the transcripts, we used Google NotebookLM. An overarching and thematic summary of the data was produced in minutes, that would otherwise have occupied our research team for weeks. The unprompted text, immediately plausible and coherent, was regarded by all national interviewers as impressive. Here, using a relatively small, convenience sample, we compare the AI generated summaries both against our original data and those first impressions. We reflect upon our own experience of using AI and that of our interviewees. This paper is about how we used AI as an experiment, our reaction to it, how that chimes, resonates, echoes the experiences of the ECRs. It is a calibration for our future data analysis. Key Points: Interview transcripts totalling 150,000 words rendered as a 1500‐word summary in less than a minute.The summary rated overall 3/5 (passable), sometimes better by those who conducted the original interviews.A tendency to over‐generalisation is the most observed fault.NotebookLM is a very useful tool to gain an overview, but best used as a guide for further scrutiny not as a draft.As we further explore the theme of 'the ghostwriter in the machine' we begin to discern there is also an editors' ghost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Learned Publishing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This an exploration of the use of AI in research and writing. It builds upon the 'Harbingers' project, an international and longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) and scholarly communication. In the fourth phase of the project, we returned to the theme of AI, in particular AI as 'ghostwriter'. Our sources are transcripts of conversational, open‐form interviews with over 60 ECRs from Britain, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Russia, and other countries. For an initial analysis of the transcripts, we used Google NotebookLM. An overarching and thematic summary of the data was produced in minutes, that would otherwise have occupied our research team for weeks. The unprompted text, immediately plausible and coherent, was regarded by all national interviewers as impressive. Here, using a relatively small, convenience sample, we compare the AI generated summaries both against our original data and those first impressions. We reflect upon our own experience of using AI and that of our interviewees. This paper is about how we used AI as an experiment, our reaction to it, how that chimes, resonates, echoes the experiences of the ECRs. It is a calibration for our future data analysis. Key Points: Interview transcripts totalling 150,000 words rendered as a 1500‐word summary in less than a minute.The summary rated overall 3/5 (passable), sometimes better by those who conducted the original interviews.A tendency to over‐generalisation is the most observed fault.NotebookLM is a very useful tool to gain an overview, but best used as a guide for further scrutiny not as a draft.As we further explore the theme of 'the ghostwriter in the machine' we begin to discern there is also an editors' ghost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09531513 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/leap.2051 |
