An editor identifies four major challenges of using generative AI in academic writing
In short: An analysis of editorial experiences at Springer Nature found that co-writing with generative AI presents four primary hurdles for scholars: detection, sourcing, writing, and attitude. The paper highlights how current publisher guidelines often lack practical utility for authors navigating these new technologies.
Drawing on the author's experience editing various Springer Nature publications, the paper explores the complexities of human-AI collaboration. While the findings are based on a specific publishing context, they may apply more broadly to humanities and social sciences publishing. However, the insights are rooted in a single publisher's perspective.
Why it matters: As generative AI enters academia, editors face significant new hurdles in managing authorship and ethics.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Source: Research: Jandric (2026). GenAI and Academic Writing. Postdigital Science and Education. · cc-by-nc-nd
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/history-research-an-editor-identifies-four-major-challenges-of-using-generati.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in History · Latest · A–Z · All topics
