Should self acclaimed experts - only in tune with protracted self accumulated knowledge within their field and usually crossed with new ideas - be at the forefront and trusted in validating a scientific contribution? Would there ever be an age where AI will solely validate the authenticity of a manuscript encapsulating a scientific finding? This appears to not be a far distant prospect but questions lingers on the time scale.
AI traces the existing knowledge and applies the existing criteria. Research works differently and unexpectedly, which AI is not good at.
It is based on the claims raised in the submitted manuscripts. Consequently, if the claims are outstanding with very good contributions, they attract commercial industries with more acknowledgements.
Unlike natural sciences, mathematics require a deep expertise in relatively complex specialized problems. It's not easy for every editorial board to have access to a magnitude of expert like that. If the author honestly believes of an importance and significance of the problem solved, the article should be directed to the best in line commercial journals. They may not assure a speedy publication, but certainly a well qualified review.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence