Generative AI in scientific publishing: disruptive or destructive? – Nature Reviews Urology

Generative AI in scientific publishing: disruptive or destructive? – Nature Reviews Urology

Spread the love

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize scientific publishing. The influence of AI could be disruptive or destructive and its influence remains to be seen, but balance between the convenience and accessibility offered by AI-driven tools and the essential skills of deep scientific inquiry and communication needs to be found.

In the past few decades, an exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge has occurred, setting the stage for potentially major advances1; however, a noticeable declining trend in disruptive scientific discoveries has happened in parallel. Analysis of millions of papers showed that this trend is unlikely to be driven by changes in citation practices or by the quality of published works. Rather, such a decline could represent a substantive shift in science, with a decreasing revolutionary nature of discoveries and inventions2. However one chooses to perceive the decline in groundbreaking scientific discoveries, it stands in contrast to the exponential growth in the number of published research papers3. We believe that this observation is as an intriguing paradox that raises questions about the evolving dynamics happening within the scientific community.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Fink, T. M. A., Reeves, M., Palma, R. & Farr, R. S. Serendipity and strategy in rapid innovation. Nat. Commun. 8, 2002 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Park, M., Leahey, E. & Funk, R. J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613, 138–144 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J. & Webb, M. Are ideas getting harder to find? Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 1104–1144 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rice, D. B. et al. Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities. BMJ 369, m2081 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Stone, L. The dawning of the age of artificial intelligence in urology. Nat. Rev. Urol. 18, 322 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutson, M. Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature 611, 192–193 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Conroy, G. How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing. Nature 622, 234–236 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Joaquin, J. J. & Biana, H. T. When authors play the predatory journals’ own game. Nature 621, 474 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Borgo Trento Hospital, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Riccardo Bertolo & Alessandro Antonelli

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo Bertolo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bertolo, R., Antonelli, A. Generative AI in scientific publishing: disruptive or destructive?. Nat Rev Urol (2023).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI:

Related News

No Image
No Image
No Image