AI has changed the way academic writing is refined and polished. Tasks that once took hours can now be completed in minutes
From an editor’s point of view, AI has changed the way academic writing is refined and polished. Tasks that once took hours can now be completed in minutes. Grammar can be checked quickly, sentences can be smoothed out and clarity can be improved with just a few prompts. For editors, this is both an opportunity and a responsibility. The key question is not whether to use AI, but how to use it ethically while preserving the integrity of the author’s work.
At the heart of academic editing is a clear principle: the editor supports the author but does not replace them. The role of an editor is to improve clarity and readability, while ensuring that the author’s voice, meaning and argument remain intact. AI can assist with this process, but it must be used carefully. If AI begins to change the substance of the work, the editor risks overstepping the boundaries between editing and academic supervision.
In practical terms, AI is most appropriate for surface-level editing. This includes correcting grammar and spelling (eg PerfectIt, Grammarly, Paul Beverley’s macros or the MS Word editor tool), as well as improving sentence flow and identifying unclear phrasing. These are tasks that align with traditional editing practices. AI can also help to identify repetition, suggest more concise wording and flag areas where the writing may be difficult to follow. Used in this way, AI acts as an advanced tool that supports the editor’s judgement.
The editor’s role is not to co-author the work.
However, modern AI tools can go far beyond basic editing. They can rewrite paragraphs, generate arguments and reorganise sections of text. This is where ethical concerns become more complex. From an editor’s perspective, using AI to reshape the author’s argument or introduce new ideas is not acceptable. The editor’s role is not to co-author the work. Even if the changes improve the quality of the writing, they may compromise the authenticity of the author’s contribution. Editors must therefore exercise restraint. It is important to distinguish between improving how something is said and changing what is being said. For example, rephrasing a sentence to make it clearer is appropriate. Rewriting a paragraph so that it presents a stronger argument, especially if that argument was not expressed originally by the author, is not. Instead, the editor should provide comments or suggestions for the author to consider.
Another important issue is transparency. As generative AI becomes more common in academic editing, expectations regarding disclosure are evolving. This is possibly where the greatest dilemma lies – what if it is very evident that the author has used generative AI? Are the authors expected to declare their use of generative AI? How does the editor then edit this? Is it even the editor’s role? If you also use AI tools in your editing, it may be necessary to inform authors of this – in fact, this may be required by the author, in which case you need to be honest about what you have done. Editors also need to be aware of institutional guidelines and publishing standards. Transparency helps to maintain trust and ensures that all parties understand how the work has been developed.
When using AI, the editor should ask: does this change improve clarity without altering meaning?
There is also a professional responsibility to maintain high standards. AI tools are not always accurate. They may misinterpret context, suggest incorrect changes, oversimplify complex ideas or present false information and unsubstantiated, vague conclusions – the role of the editor is not to try to correct this as this is an academic issue, not a language editing issue. It is also useful to reflect on purpose. When using AI, the editor should ask: Does this change improve clarity without altering meaning? If the answer is yes, the use is probably appropriate.
Bias is another concern. AI systems are trained on large datasets that may contain certain preferences or biases in language use. The consideration of diversity and context is often a concern. AI’s preferences may not always align with the needs of a specific academic context. For example, AI might favour a particular style of writing that does not suit the discipline or the author’s intended audience. Editors need to remain aware of this and ensure that the final text is appropriate for its purpose.
From an editor’s viewpoint, there is also a concern about over-editing. When using AI, it is easy to make extensive changes quickly. However, too many changes can remove the author’s original voice. Good editing should enhance the author’s work, not make it sound generic or artificial.
AI also raises questions about skill development. For editors, there is a risk of becoming too dependent on automated tools. Editing is a craft that requires attention to detail, language awareness and critical thinking. While AI can assist, it should not replace the development of these skills. Editors must continue to engage actively with the text and apply their own expertise.
Ethical AI use in editing is, thus, guided by a few key principles. First, respect authorship. The ideas and arguments must remain those of the author. Second, limit AI use to tasks that support clarity and presentation. Third, apply professional judgement to all AI suggestions. Fourth, maintain transparency where required. Finally, preserve the author’s voice and intent.
As AI continues to develop, the role of the editor will continue to evolve. New tools will offer more advanced features and the line between editing and writing may become less clear. This makes ethical awareness even more important. Editors should adapt to new technologies while staying true to the core values of their profession, namely, maintaining quality, integrity and respect for the author’s work.
967 words
