Irrespective of how good the level of English proficiency, researchers may make mistakes in their spelling/grammar, terminology use, and word choice, especially if they are working on deadlines. This is where automated AI-driven academic writing and English editing tools offer a significant advantage, improving the quality of submitted manuscripts in minutes.
These AI tools in research are based on natural language processing (NLP), which helps computers understand, interpret, and use language just like human beings can. With continual training on data related to how humans write or edit academic text, these AI-powered tools can automatically detect and correct errors, and flag other complex issues for the author to fix before submission.
Such sophisticated AI-driven language solutions are transforming scholarly communications by helping researchers improve the grammar, punctuation, tone, style, and formatting of manuscripts, which, in turn, can increase their chances of acceptance. Therefore, a comparison of the capabilities of such tools in terms of quality, accuracy, and effectiveness is both relevant and useful. That is what we’ve done in a white paper titled AI-based editing tools for researchers: A comparative analysis.
This white paper evaluates the performance of 5 AI tools in research and publishing: Paperpal, Grammarly, Writefull, Instatext, and AJE Digital using metrics such as recall, precision, and F score. We did a three-fold assessment to find answers to the following questions:
• How well does each AI tool perform compared with a human expert?
• How well do the AI tools perform against a broad repertoire of multiple human editors?
• How well can these AI tools assist human editing?
The in-depth analysis shows that on the whole, Paperpal is the most efficient tool for researchers because it is designed specifically for academic texts, has high accuracy and precision, and can support real-world editing effectively on both Word and Web.
As researchers, some of you may be optimistic about the advantages of AI-based editing programs, while some may be sceptical about them. Others may question their credibility and possible biases given the lack of human judgement. This white paper offers clarity on effectiveness of different AI tools and offers key points for researchers to consider when choosing an AI editing tool that works for them. Click here to read or download the white paper!