REVIEW 1 cited by
Drivers and Barriers of AI Adoption and Use in Scientific Research
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
New technologies have the power to revolutionize science. It has happened in the past and is happening again with the emergence of new computational tools, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Despite the documented impact of these technologies, there remains a significant gap in understanding the process of their adoption within the scientific community. In this paper, we draw on theories of scientific and technical human capital to study the integration of AI in scientific research, focusing on the human capital of scientists and the external resources available within their network of collaborators and institutions. We validate our hypotheses on a large sample of publications from OpenAlex, covering all sciences from 1980 to 2020, and identify a set key drivers and inhibitors of AI adoption and use in science. Our results suggest that AI is pioneered by domain scientists with a `taste for exploration' and who are embedded in a network rich of computer scientists, experienced AI scientists and early-career researchers; they come from institutions with high citation impact and a relatively strong publication history on AI. The access to computing resources only matters for a few scientific disciplines, such as chemistry and medical sciences. Once AI is integrated into research, most adoption factors continue to influence its subsequent reuse. Implications for the organization and management of science in the evolving era of AI-driven discovery are discussed.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications
A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.