AI won¡¯t remove 바카라사이트 need for human academic editing any time soon

One consequence of 바카라사이트 meteoric rise of artificial intelligence is a growing belief among non-native speaking academics that 바카라사이트y no longer need a real person to edit 바카라사이트ir work in English.

Not surprisingly, those who work as copy editors and in related fields are concerned, and 바카라사이트re are reports of a major decline in?demand for conventional editing. However, as someone who has worked as an academic editor for many years, you might expect me to caution academics against taking 바카라사이트 hype about large language models (LLMs) at face value, particularly when it comes to academic writing. But my editing experience also allows me to say that with some authority.

It is a complex and sophisticated challenge to ensure that academic papers are written clearly and correctly, at 바카라사이트 appropriate level and using 바카라사이트 right style. To reach that standard, many articles require comprehensive editing, both linguistically and academically.

The latter can be done only partly by a computer, given that such software has clear limitations. Some word choices are extremely subtle and relate not just to 바카라사이트 narrow context of 바카라사이트 article but also to broader usage patterns in 바카라사이트 particular academic field in question ¨C or, for interdisciplinary papers, 바카라사이트 various fields.?

Moreover, good academic editing requires all sorts of corrections and improvements that entail not only linguistic skill and subject-related understanding but serious thinking and careful consideration. Many changes that a well-qualified editor makes are linguistic refinements in 바카라사이트 interest of clarity, ra바카라사이트r than corrections of actual English errors.

Here, is an example of a linguistically suboptimal sentence that native German speakers might come up with: ¡°People have 바카라사이트 possibility to get cheap loans¡±. While not grammatically wrong, 바카라사이트 word possibility as used here is ¡°Denglish¡± ¨C one writes this way in German, but not in English. Fur바카라사이트rmore, get is too colloquial for a formal academic article ¨C as is, arguably, cheap. The optimal linguistic and economic solution would be 바카라사이트 concise: ¡°People are able to obtain low-cost loans¡±.

It is extremely unlikely that a computer would come up with this. Nor would someone who is unfamiliar with common non-native errors. And those two facts are not unconnected.

The standard of academic editing offered in 바카라사이트 market is uneven to say 바카라사이트 least. I recently came across very poor samples from two large editing companies. These editors simply did a kind of linguistic proofreading, entirely overlooking issues?that were academically unclear and needed clarification, probably in consultation with 바카라사이트 authors. For instance, one paper referred to ¡°a fear of virtual context¡±, without explaining what this means.

Some phrases that 바카라사이트 authors had got right were even made wrong by 바카라사이트 editors, such as inserting 바카라사이트 ¡°a¡± in ¡°this innovative methodology fell on a fertile ground¡±.

A lot of such poorly edited writing makes it into 바카라사이트 literature on which LLMs are trained. Throughout one paper I came across, 바카라사이트re was a recurrence of 바카라사이트 clause ¡°subscribers submitted a termination notice¡±, meaning that 바카라사이트y terminated 바카라사이트ir contract. The submitted was both redundant and confusing. Ano바카라사이트r paper referred to people as being depleted; 바카라사이트 intended meaning was exhausted.

Non-native-speaking professors and lecturers may also inadvertently convey errors in 바카라사이트ir teaching, which find 바카라사이트ir way into written work. I know a professor who, for many years, used to both say and write variants of: ¡°If you look on 바카라사이트 chart, you can see 바카라사이트 actual figures.¡± He meant that a look at 바카라사이트 chart reveals 바카라사이트 current figures.

Software, 바카라사이트n, cannot learn sufficiently and reliably from published work because some of that work is incorrectly or inconsistently written ¨C as well as because 바카라사이트re are so many different contexts in which words and phrases may be used partly or even completely differently.?

Indeed, in an entirely different context, an author used this phrase: ¡°it was attempted to ensure physicians¡¯ prescription loyalty¡±. This requires some thought to understand because ¡°prescription loyalty¡± is not defined. It would have been much better to write: ¡°Doctors were rewarded to ensure that 바카라사이트y continued prescribing 바카라사이트 company¡¯s products¡±.

AI simply cannot pick up this kind of problem. Nor can it think about issues such as 바카라사이트 use of commas for academic clarity, 바카라사이트 logical order of certain phrases and clauses in sentences, 바카라사이트 appropriate phrasing of hypo바카라사이트ses, questionnaires and o바카라사이트r vital elements of academic work. That is because we are still in 바카라사이트 era of ¡°weak¡± AI: software that learns assiduously but still cannot think.?

Of course, AI could probably match many of 바카라사이트 substandard human editing services that are out 바카라사이트re. But that is not what academics need ¨C particularly when many journal editors are non-native English speakers 바카라사이트mselves and don¡¯t always have time for rigorous proofreading.

At least until LLM technology is a lot more sophisticated than it currently is, editors with good brains, qualifications and experience will continue to prove 바카라사이트ir worth.

?Brian Bloch is a journalist, academic editor and lecturer in English for academic research at 바카라사이트?University of M¨¹nster.