Last week, science publisher Elsevier launched a new generative AI tool geared specifically to the needs of scientists. A promising development, but not without its drawbacks.

Elsevier claims that ScienceDirect AI enables researchers to speed up their scientific literature searches. “Goodbye wasted reading time, hello relevance.” The tool’s key selling point is that it has been trained using only scientific literature, which should make it far more relevant to scientists.

To increase reliability, ScienceDirect AI makes use of direct references to original sources. This renders the information both traceable and reproducible, Elsevier promises.

ScienceDirect AI is also designed with security as a selling point: no information is stored or used to train public models. All data remains within a secure, Elsevier-exclusive environment.

Logical development

UKB, the partnership of the thirteen Dutch university libraries and the National Library of the Netherlands, sees AI as a logical development that can aid scientific progress. UKB is particularly happy with the transparency that ScienceDirect AI offers: ‘The shared code enables scientists to use the software in their own research and this, in turn, advances the cause of science.’ However, UKB also argues that scientists should be able to retain ownership of their own work and control over how it is used.

University association UNL also sees the potential of the new AI tool, but goes on to warn of its limitations. ‘Tools that speed up the scientific process are certainly welcome’, spokesperson Ruben Puylaert responds, ‘but the question remains whether a closed and paid environment – using a selection of scientific articles – offers a sufficiently broad and objective understanding of the state of science.’

After all, ScienceDirect AI is owned by Elsevier, a global publisher. The information may be more reliable compared to open AI tools that generate their data on the basis of the worldwide web, but the available answers are mainly limited to publications by Elsevier, a company with its own commercial interests. Only ten percent of the sources come from outside Elsevier itself.

Not free

Dr Sanli Faez, an associate professor in physics at Utrecht University, sees this as a major shortcoming. In his view, ScienceDirect AI can be a practical tool but because its output is largely limited to Elsevier publications, it is very ‘biased’. Faez understands the desire for simple solutions, but hopes that there will be greater support for open-source projects, such as ASReview, an AI tool developed at Utrecht University.

ScienceDirect AI is not freely available: it requires a subscription to ScienceDirect itself and an additional subscription to use the AI tool. For some time, there has been criticism of the increasingly large sums that academic publishers are charging universities. And concerns remain about whether the data of users is in safe hands.