[doug-moen]

> Netherlands-based Elsevier bans the use of such tools, citing the "risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions."

That's for peer reviewers, who aren't paid. Elsevier is also reported to be using AI to replace editing staff. Perhaps this risk is less relevant when there is an opportunity to increase profits?

Evolution journal editors resign en masse to protest Elsevier changes. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/12/27/evolution-journal-edi...

discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528203

[jeroenhd]

Elsevier is trash for so many reasons that I'm amazed they're still in business. I'm glad educational facilities are moving more and more to open-access publications at the very least.

[pcrh]

AI for basic copy-editing is legitimate, I think, even if it might be a bit erratic right now.

Manuscripts I've had approved have been sent to be that are clearly copy-edited by AI, and it does spot errors.

However, AI should not be used to evaluate the scientific worthiness of a manuscript, it simply isn't capable of doing so.