Some consider AI to be a sufficient replacement for human editors and proofreaders. Professionals in the field provide a more nuanced view.

As technology advances, industries adapt to integrate new tools. AI tools, in particular generative AI models like ChatGPT, are an important technological advancement today. Professionals in all areas are now asking many of the same questions, such as “What is AI useful for?” “Where is an AI tool more efficient than a human being?” and “What does this mean for our employees?” The publishing field is not immune to this, and as editors, it can be hard to feel secure in our jobs.

THE RESEARCH 

In Navigating the Impact: A Study of Editors’ and Proofreaders’ Perceptions of AI Tools in Editing and Proofreading, Islam Al Sawi from MSA Unviersity and Ahmed Alaa (2023) from Badr University in Cairo evaluated the relationship between AI tools and the publishing industry by sending a questionnaire to 17 professional editors and proofreaders in Egypt. The questionnaire included a list of six open-ended questions with the goal to answer one question: “What are the perceptions of professional editors and proofreaders toward the use of AI tools in editing and proofreading?” (Al Sawi and Alaa 2024, 2). Because this study is based on qualitative data, the responses were divided into themes for easier analysis: advantages of AI, disadvantages of AI, ethical concerns, and the future of AI.

All participants reported using AI tools in their editing or proofreading process, with the top-reported tools being Grammarly, ChatGPT, and PerfectIt. They reported that using these tools helped them to save time and contributed to enhanced quality and productivity. In contrast, they also reported inaccuracies in the AI’s suggestions—such as marking correct phrases as incorrect—making the tool unreliable. Other negatives included a fear of dependency, cost concerns, and ethical challenges. Some comments refuted these ethical concerns, dismissing them because they “haven’t encountered any violations” (7) of policy.

Overall, the report on advantages and disadvantages were varied. Each of the 17 professional editors had unique views on the positives and negatives of AI use. This disagreement continued in the professionals’ discussion of the future of AI. Everyone agreed that AI would keep improving, but disagreed on whether AI editors would eclipse human editors or simply be used as an aid. The professionals did agree, however, that AI is not yet a sophisticated enough tool to replace humans. Why? Because these tools have a “limited ability to understand a text’s context, tone, or culture” (3). This is a uniquely human ability, for now.

“ChatGPT cannot replace a human editor/proofreader but can be a convenient assisting tool.”

Al Sawi and Alaa (2023)

THE IMPLICATIONS

Even with AI’s weaknesses, each of the professionals in this study used AI tools, and trends show that this is becoming a common practice. Editors need to understand that AI tools have limitations but they are powerful and improving. So what does this mean about the future of human editing? What should we do with this information? 

First, we should focus on the advantages that AI tools do offer us. Every editorial team has more than one member. Make AI a member of your team and save time on the more technical (or tedious) parts of editing! As you check over an AI tool’s work on an edit or proofread, take note of what this particular tool is good at and what it isn’t. Adjust its role in your work accordingly.

Second, continue to improve the skills that AI isn’t adept at. Make sure to incorporate your knowledge of the text’s context, tone, and culture into your edits. Bring that human aspect into your editing and make it shine. The threat of an AI takeover can be scary, but at least for now, humans are better at understanding humans. And as AI tools continue to improve, so can we.

To learn more about AI use according to professionals in publishing, read the full article:

Al Sawi, Islam and Ahmed Alaa. 2024 “Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading.” Discov Artif Intell 4 no. 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00116-5

—Ellie Taylor, Editing Research

FEATURE IMAGE BY COTTONBRO STUDIO

Find more research

Take a look at Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang’s (2023) article to learn about positive effects of AI:  “Experimental Evidence on the Productivity Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4375283.

Read Parker Cook’s (2023) article “CHATGPT, Editing, and You” on Editing Research for an overview of Noy and Zhang’s (2023) article and to learn how you can apply their findings in your editing.