Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Text revision in Scientific Writing Assistance: An Overview

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

arxiv 2303.16726 v1 pith:36GAT52J submitted 2023-03-29 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords writingscientificassistanceoverviewrevisiontexttoolsadditionally
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Writing a scientific article is a challenging task as it is a highly codified genre. Good writing skills are essential to properly convey ideas and results of research work. Since the majority of scientific articles are currently written in English, this exercise is all the more difficult for non-native English speakers as they additionally have to face language issues. This article aims to provide an overview of text revision in writing assistance in the scientific domain. We will examine the specificities of scientific writing, including the format and conventions commonly used in research articles. Additionally, this overview will explore the various types of writing assistance tools available for text revision. Despite the evolution of the technology behind these tools through the years, from rule-based approaches to deep neural-based ones, challenges still exist (tools' accessibility, limited consideration of the context, inexplicit use of discursive information, etc.)

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ScholaWrite: A Dataset of End-to-End Scholarly Writing Process

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ScholaWrite records over 61,000 keystroke-level edits from five real scholarly preprints, each annotated with one of 15 cognitive writing intentions, and analyzes how writing unfolds non-linearly over months.

Pith tools