Scholarlink

<p>This paper exposes some of the main problems of cowriting with General Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) based on author’s experience of editing Springer Nature’s <i>Postdigital Science and Education</i> journal, Postdigital Science and Education Book Series, the <i>Encyclopaedia of Postdigital Science and Education</i>, and Chapters in Education. The paper outlines the four main challenges in facing scholarly editors—the challenge of detection, the challenge of sourcing, the challenge of writing, and the challenge of attitude. It reveals the opacity and practical uselessness of publisher guidelines, followed by some examples of methodologically and ethically sound human–GenAI cowriting. While presented conclusions are developed within the context of one publisher and its several publishing outlets, they are to an extent generalizable to contemporary academic publishing at least in the humanities and social sciences. The paper ends with an announcement of a zero-tolerance policy towards any kind of fraudulent human–GenAI cowriting in <i>Postdigital Science and Education</i> journal, Postdigital Science and Education Book Series, the <i>Encyclopaedia of Postdigital Science and Education</i>, and Chapters in Education, followed by an invitation for a broad postdigital dialogue about the future of academic writing with GenAI.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

GenAI and Academic Writing

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月29日

查看全文
  • Petar Jandrić

摘要

This paper exposes some of the main problems of cowriting with General Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) based on author’s experience of editing Springer Nature’s Postdigital Science and Education journal, Postdigital Science and Education Book Series, the Encyclopaedia of Postdigital Science and Education, and Chapters in Education. The paper outlines the four main challenges in facing scholarly editors—the challenge of detection, the challenge of sourcing, the challenge of writing, and the challenge of attitude. It reveals the opacity and practical uselessness of publisher guidelines, followed by some examples of methodologically and ethically sound human–GenAI cowriting. While presented conclusions are developed within the context of one publisher and its several publishing outlets, they are to an extent generalizable to contemporary academic publishing at least in the humanities and social sciences. The paper ends with an announcement of a zero-tolerance policy towards any kind of fraudulent human–GenAI cowriting in Postdigital Science and Education journal, Postdigital Science and Education Book Series, the Encyclopaedia of Postdigital Science and Education, and Chapters in Education, followed by an invitation for a broad postdigital dialogue about the future of academic writing with GenAI.