ReviewAnalytical chemistry2025
Artificial Intelligence as a Scientific Copilot in Analytical Chemistry: Transforming How We Write, Review, and Publish.
Review in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Data Extraction and AGREE-Based Greenness Evaluation of Analytical Methods for Natural Products: Insights from Selected Studies.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Analytical Chemistry: Towards Yet Undiscovered Opportunities.Analytical chemistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly present across all phases of analytical chemistry, not only in experimental workflows but also in the way scientific writing is produced, evaluated, and published. This perspective offers a critical reflection on the growing use of AI tools as writing copilots in the field, focusing on novel yet underexplored practices such as literature review support, manuscript drafting, and AI-assisted peer review. While tools like ChatGPT, SciSpace, and Grammarly are becoming commonplace in manuscript preparation, their integration also raises important concerns about authorship transparency, originality, and the homogenization of scientific voice. The article highlights both the opportunities and limitations of these technologies. A comparative analysis is presented to summarize the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with AI use in scientific communication. This work advocates for the responsible adoption of these tools, the development of ethical guidelines, and the inclusion of AI training in analytical chemistry curricula. By encouraging the scientific community to reflect on these changes collectively, we expect to ensure that AI enhances, rather than undermines, the critical thinking and creativity that define scientific authorship.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.