AI will soon be able to audit all published research
Empower your mind, elevate your skills
Self-correction is fundamental to science. One of its most important forms is peer review, when anonymous experts scrutinise research before it is published. This helps safeguard the accuracy of the written record.Yet problems slip through. A range of grassroots and institutional initiatives work to identify problematic papers, strengthen the peer-review process, and clean up the scientific record through retractions or journal closures. But these efforts are imperfect and resource intensive.Soon, artificial intelligence (AI) will be able to supercharge these efforts. What might that mean for public trust in science?In recent decades, the digital age and disciplinary diversification have sparked an explosion in the number of scientific papers being published, the number of journals in existence, and the influence of for-profit publishing.This has opened the doors for exploitation. Opportunistic "paper mills" sell quick publication with minimal review to academics desperate for credentials, while publishers generate substantial profits through huge article-processing fees.Corporations have also seized the opportunity to fund low-quality research and ghostwrite papers intended to distort the weight of evidence, influence public policy and alter public opinion in favour of their products.These ongoing challenges highlight the insufficiency of peer review as the primary guardian of scientific reliability. In response, efforts have sprung up to bolster the integrity of the scientific enterprise. Retraction Watch actively tracks withdrawn papers and other academic misconduct. Academic sleuths and initiatives such as Data Collada identify manipulated data and figures.Investigative journalists expose corporate influence. A new field of meta-science (science of science) attempts to measure the processes of science and to uncover biases and flaws.Not all bad science has a major impact, but some certainly does. It doesn't just stay within academia; it often seeps into public understanding and policy.In a recent investigation, we examined a widely-cited safety review of the herbicide glyphosate, which appeared to be independent and comprehensive. In reality, documents produced during legal proceedings against Monsanto revealed that the paper had been ghost-written by Monsanto employees and published in a journal with ties to the tobacco industry.Even after this was exposed, the paper continued to shape citations, policy documents and Wikipedia pages worldwide.When problems like this are uncovered, they can make their way into public conversations, where they are not necessarily perceived as triumphant acts of self-correction. Rather, they may be taken as proof that something is rotten in the state of science. This "science is broken" narrative undermines public trust.Until recently, technological assistance in self-correction was mostly limited to plagiarism detectors. But things are changing. Machine-learning services such as ImageTwin and Proofig now scan millions of figures for signs of duplication, manipulation and AI generation.Natural language processing tools flag "tortured phrases" - the tell-tale word salads of paper mills. Bibliometric dashboards such as one by Semantic Scholar trace whether papers are cited in support or contradiction.AI - especially agentic, reasoning-capable models increasingly proficient in mathematics and logic - will soon uncover more subtle flaws.For example, the Black Spatula Project explores the ability of the latest AI models to check published mathematical proofs at scale, automatically identifying algebraic inconsistencies that eluded human reviewers. Our own work mentioned above also substantially relies on large language models to process large volumes of text.Given full-text access and sufficient computing power, these systems could soon enable a global audit of the scholarly record. A comprehensive audit will likely find some outright fraud and a much larger mass of routine, journeyman work with garden-variety errors.We do not know yet how prevalent fraud is, but what we do know is that an awful lot of scientific work is inconsequential. Scientists know this; it's much discussed that a good deal of published work is never or very rarely cited.To outsiders, this revelation may be as jarring as uncovering fraud, because it collides with the image of dramatic, heroic scientific discovery that populates university press releases and trade press treatments.What might give this audit added weight is its AI author, which may be seen as (and may in fact be) impartial and competent, and therefore reliable.As a result, these findings will be vulnerable to exploitation in disinformation campaigns, particularly since AI is already being used to that end.Safeguarding public trust requires redefining the scientist's role in more transparent, realistic terms. Much of today's research is incremental, career‑sustaining work rooted in education, mentorship and public engagement.If we are to be honest with ourselves and with the public, we must abandon the incentives that pressure universities and scientific publishers, as well as scientists themselves, to exaggerate the significance of their work. Truly ground-breaking work is rare. But that does not render the rest of scientific work useless.A more humble and honest portrayal of the scientist as a contributor to a collective, evolving understanding will be more robust to AI-driven scrutiny than the myth of science as a parade of individual breakthroughs.A sweeping, cross-disciplinary audit is on the horizon. It could come from a government watchdog, a think tank, an anti-science group or a corporation seeking to undermine public trust in science.Scientists can already anticipate what it will reveal. If the scientific community prepares for the findings - or better still, takes the lead - the audit could inspire a disciplined renewal. But if we delay, the cracks it uncovers may be misinterpreted as fractures in the scientific enterprise itself.Science has never derived its strength from infallibility. Its credibility lies in the willingness to correct and repair. We must now demonstrate that willingness publicly, before trust is broken.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
India Is Losing Its Best and Brightest
Could Aravind Srinivas have achieved his full potential by remaining in India instead of moving to Silicon Valley? The co-founder and CEO of the AI-powered search engine Perplexity, which Mr. Srinivas, 31, describes as 'a marriage of Wikipedia and ChatGPT,' is the latest tech superstar to be feted by the Indian media. Following a new round of funding this month, Perplexity is valued at $18 billion. Early investors in the startup include Jeff Bezos, former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan. Mr. Srinivas sees search engine behemoth Google as ripe for disruption. On one level, the answer is obvious. Mr. Srinivas couldn't have built a cutting-edge tech company in India, but neither could he have done so in France, Brazil or Russia. The unique mix of talented engineers and risk-taking investors that defines Silicon Valley doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet. But Mr. Srinivas's story also highlights an issue that Indians tend to overlook. The Indian media has published countless laudatory stories about Indian tech titans in the West. According to the Times of India, for instance, the roots of Mr. Srinivas's success lie in his mother's early encouragement to study one day at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology in his hometown, Chennai in Tamil Nadu. Among educated Indians, Google's Sundar Pichai, Microsoft's Satya Nadella, IBM's Arvind Krishna and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen—all Indian-born tech CEOs—are household names. Sanjaya Baru, an Indian author and journalist, believes Indians are too sanguine about a sustained brain drain from their country. In a new book, 'Secession of the Successful,' he points out that nearly 1.9 million Indians renounced their citizenship between 2011 and 2023. That's a small fraction of India's 1.45 billion people, but it includes some of the country's most talented engineers, doctors and scientists. Since independence in 1947, no Indian working in India has won a Nobel Prize in science or a Fields medal, the equivalent in mathematics. The last Indian in India to win a Nobel Prize for science was the physicist C.V. Raman in 1930. A 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that of the top 1,000 students who cleared the grueling nationwide entrance exam for the Indian Institutes of Technology in 2010, 36% had migrated eight years later, mostly to the U.S. At the very top—the top 10 students to clear the exam that year—the migration rate was 90%. 'It's not accurate to look at this as a pinprick on an elephant,' Mr. Baru says in a phone interview from Hyderabad. 'Why has no Indian government been able to get some of the top guns to come back?' Why do so many Indians leave and so few go back? Economic opportunity plays a big part. In purchasing power parity terms, which takes into account the lower cost of most goods and services in poor countries, India's gross domestic product per capita of $11,000 is roughly an eighth of America's $86,000. But it isn't only about money. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, an Indian-born scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2009, has pointed out that a lack of infrastructure, excessive bureaucratic and political interference, and overly complex rules make it hard for India to attract scientific talent. India spends only 0.6% to 0.7% of its GDP on research, a far smaller fraction than the U.S. or China. Urban squalor is another problem. The flashy Delhi suburb of Gurugram (formerly Gurgaon) pays a large chunk of the state of Haryana's taxes. But due to a lack of urban planning, and a political class beholden to voters in the countryside, Gurugram lacks a proper drainage system. Videos of luxury cars in Gurugram drowning in murky brown rainwater are a staple of Indian social media. The richest neighborhoods of Bangalore feature garbage rotting on the streets. Delhi has some of the most expensive real estate in Asia and some of the least breathable air in the world. India's failure to retain and attract global talent has geopolitical implications. Over the past two decades, China, with which India shares a disputed 2,200-mile border, has moved aggressively to attract global scientific talent to its shores. In 2008 the Chinese government launched the Thousand Talents Plan to bring top-tier scientific talent to China. Since then scores of high-profile scientists, many of Chinese origin, have moved to Chinese universities and laboratories. The Nature Index, which tracks 'high-quality' research, counts 45 Chinese universities in the top 100. (The U.S. has 31.) The highest ranked Indian institution, the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is ranked 212. Mr. Baru believes that rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the West may make it easier for India to retain or attract back some of its smartest people. But arguably the deeper cause—a political and intellectual culture geared toward redistributive justice rather than individual excellence—may be hard to overcome.
Mint
4 days ago
- Mint
India is losing its best and brightest
Could Aravind Srinivas have achieved his full potential by remaining in India instead of moving to Silicon Valley? The co-founder and CEO of the AI-powered search engine Perplexity, which Mr. Srinivas, 31, describes as 'a marriage of Wikipedia and ChatGPT," is the latest tech superstar to be feted by the Indian media. Following a new round of funding this month, Perplexity is valued at $18 billion. Early investors in the startup include Jeff Bezos, former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan. Mr. Srinivas sees search engine behemoth Google as ripe for disruption. On one level, the answer is obvious. Mr. Srinivas couldn't have built a cutting-edge tech company in India, but neither could he have done so in France, Brazil or Russia. The unique mix of talented engineers and risk-taking investors that defines Silicon Valley doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet. But Mr. Srinivas's story also highlights an issue that Indians tend to overlook. The Indian media has published countless laudatory stories about Indian tech titans in the West. According to the Times of India, for instance, the roots of Mr. Srinivas's success lie in his mother's early encouragement to study one day at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology in his hometown, Chennai in Tamil Nadu. Among educated Indians, Google's Sundar Pichai, Microsoft's Satya Nadella, IBM's Arvind Krishna and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen—all Indian-born tech CEOs—are household names. Sanjaya Baru, an Indian author and journalist, believes Indians are too sanguine about a sustained brain drain from their country. In a new book, 'Secession of the Successful," he points out that nearly 1.9 million Indians renounced their citizenship between 2011 and 2023. That's a small fraction of India's 1.45 billion people, but it includes some of the country's most talented engineers, doctors and scientists. Since independence in 1947, no Indian working in India has won a Nobel Prize in science or a Fields medal, the equivalent in mathematics. The last Indian in India to win a Nobel Prize for science was the physicist C.V. Raman in 1930. A 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that of the top 1,000 students who cleared the grueling nationwide entrance exam for the Indian Institutes of Technology in 2010, 36% had migrated eight years later, mostly to the U.S. At the very top—the top 10 students to clear the exam that year—the migration rate was 90%. 'It's not accurate to look at this as a pinprick on an elephant," Mr. Baru says in a phone interview from Hyderabad. 'Why has no Indian government been able to get some of the top guns to come back?" Why do so many Indians leave and so few go back? Economic opportunity plays a big part. In purchasing power parity terms, which takes into account the lower cost of most goods and services in poor countries, India's gross domestic product per capita of $11,000 is roughly an eighth of America's $86,000. But it isn't only about money. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, an Indian-born scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2009, has pointed out that a lack of infrastructure, excessive bureaucratic and political interference, and overly complex rules make it hard for India to attract scientific talent. India spends only 0.6% to 0.7% of its GDP on research, a far smaller fraction than the U.S. or China. Urban squalor is another problem. The flashy Delhi suburb of Gurugram (formerly Gurgaon) pays a large chunk of the state of Haryana's taxes. But due to a lack of urban planning, and a political class beholden to voters in the countryside, Gurugram lacks a proper drainage system. Videos of luxury cars in Gurugram drowning in murky brown rainwater are a staple of Indian social media. The richest neighborhoods of Bangalore feature garbage rotting on the streets. Delhi has some of the most expensive real estate in Asia and some of the least breathable air in the world. India's failure to retain and attract global talent has geopolitical implications. Over the past two decades, China, with which India shares a disputed 2,200-mile border, has moved aggressively to attract global scientific talent to its shores. In 2008 the Chinese government launched the Thousand Talents Plan to bring top-tier scientific talent to China. Since then scores of high-profile scientists, many of Chinese origin, have moved to Chinese universities and laboratories. The Nature Index, which tracks 'high-quality" research, counts 45 Chinese universities in the top 100. (The U.S. has 31.) The highest ranked Indian institution, the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is ranked 212. Mr. Baru believes that rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the West may make it easier for India to retain or attract back some of its smartest people. But arguably the deeper cause—a political and intellectual culture geared toward redistributive justice rather than individual excellence—may be hard to overcome.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
TikTok asks users to help police misinformation
TikTok will soon let some of its users help fight misinformation on the app, it said Wednesday, following similar moves from Meta and social platform a new feature, Footnotes , TikTok will let a select group of users add context and background information to some of the short videos on the app, along with links to the information's sources. That group -- for now, nearly 80,000 qualified users -- will be able to rate those notes for helpfulness. Those with the highest ratings will be displayed at the bottom of all US users' and Elon Musk 's X previously rolled out "community notes" programs, which have allowed the social media giants to back away from making decisions about what content to remove from their sites, and to avoid making fraught and sometimes politically loaded Meta and X, TikTok, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance, said it was not ending any of its fact-checking programs or partnerships as it introduced Footnotes. Meta and X drew criticism for reducing investments in fact-checking and moderation that they had made in response to the viral spread of misinformation online, especially around the 2016 presidential election."Footnotes is not a replacement for content moderation. Rather, it adds context to content on TikTok," a company spokesperson said in an least initially, TikTok will let its contributors cite any sources to back up their Footnotes. The contributor program is open to US users who are 18 or older, had been on the app at least six months as of April and had no recent history of violating TikTok's community guidelines."We do expect that links to fact-checking articles, links to Wikipedia, these will be among some of the examples of what our users are directing to," Erica Ruzic, TikTok's head of integrity and authenticity, said Tuesday at a company trust and safety event before the launch. "But we will let our users decide what they're deeming an authoritative source, to begin."TikTok is drawing attention to safety on its platform after a tumultuous few years in the United States. The app, which boasts 170 million American users, has been fending off a ban under a new federal law that demanded that the company find a non-Chinese owner. President Donald Trump has extended the deadline repeatedly, most recently to the event Tuesday, panelists discussed other harm-reduction efforts on the app, including new features that allow parents to have more oversight of their child's account. It's a reminder that amid all the political turmoil, TikTok also faces the same problems that any other social media company does, including disinformation and safety issues involving children and teenagers.
