Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors

IF 1.6 Q2 COMMUNICATION Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI:10.6087/kcse.261
Kevin Heintz, Young-Wan Roh, Jonghwan Lee
{"title":"Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors","authors":"Kevin Heintz, Young-Wan Roh, Jonghwan Lee","doi":"10.6087/kcse.261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Wordvice AI Proofreader is a recently developed web-based artificial intelligence-driven text processor that provides real-time automated proofreading and editing of user-input text. It aims to compare its accuracy and effectiveness to expert proofreading by human editors and two other popular proofreading applications—automated writing analysis tools of Google Docs, and Microsoft Word. Because this tool was primarily designed for use by academic authors to proofread their manuscript drafts, the comparison of this tool’s efficacy to other tools was intended to establish the usefulness of this particular field for these authors.Methods: We performed a comparative analysis of proofreading completed by the Wordvice AI Proofreader, by experienced human academic editors, and by two other popular proofreading applications. The number of errors accurately reported and the overall usefulness of the vocabulary suggestions was measured using a General Language Evaluation Understanding metric and open dataset comparisons.Results: In the majority of texts analyzed, the Wordvice AI Proofreader achieved performance levels at or near that of the human editors, identifying similar errors and offering comparable suggestions in the majority of sample passages. The Wordvice AI Proofreader also had higher performance and greater consistency than that of the other two proofreading applications evaluated.Conclusion: We found that the overall functionality of the Wordvice artificial intelligence proofreading tool is comparable to that of a human proofreader and equal or superior to that of two other programs with built-in automated writing evaluation proofreaders used by tens of millions of users: Google Docs and Microsoft Word.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: Wordvice AI Proofreader is a recently developed web-based artificial intelligence-driven text processor that provides real-time automated proofreading and editing of user-input text. It aims to compare its accuracy and effectiveness to expert proofreading by human editors and two other popular proofreading applications—automated writing analysis tools of Google Docs, and Microsoft Word. Because this tool was primarily designed for use by academic authors to proofread their manuscript drafts, the comparison of this tool’s efficacy to other tools was intended to establish the usefulness of this particular field for these authors.Methods: We performed a comparative analysis of proofreading completed by the Wordvice AI Proofreader, by experienced human academic editors, and by two other popular proofreading applications. The number of errors accurately reported and the overall usefulness of the vocabulary suggestions was measured using a General Language Evaluation Understanding metric and open dataset comparisons.Results: In the majority of texts analyzed, the Wordvice AI Proofreader achieved performance levels at or near that of the human editors, identifying similar errors and offering comparable suggestions in the majority of sample passages. The Wordvice AI Proofreader also had higher performance and greater consistency than that of the other two proofreading applications evaluated.Conclusion: We found that the overall functionality of the Wordvice artificial intelligence proofreading tool is comparable to that of a human proofreader and equal or superior to that of two other programs with built-in automated writing evaluation proofreaders used by tens of millions of users: Google Docs and Microsoft Word.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Wordvice AI校对器与两种自动化编辑工具和人工编辑器的准确性和有效性比较
用途:Wordvice AI校对器是一款最近开发的基于网络的人工智能驱动文本处理器,可对用户输入的文本进行实时自动校对和编辑。它旨在将其准确性和有效性与人工编辑的专家校对以及另外两个流行的校对应用程序——谷歌文档和微软Word的自动写作分析工具——进行比较。由于该工具主要设计用于学术作者校对其手稿草稿,因此将该工具的功效与其他工具进行比较,旨在确定该特定领域对这些作者的有用性。方法:我们对Wordvice AI校对器、经验丰富的人类学术编辑和其他两种流行的校对应用程序完成的校对进行了比较分析。使用通用语言评估理解指标和开放数据集比较来衡量准确报告的错误数量和词汇建议的总体有用性。结果:在分析的大多数文本中,Wordvice AI校对器的表现水平达到或接近人类编辑的水平,在大多数样本段落中发现了类似的错误并提供了类似的建议。Wordvice AI校对器也比评估的其他两个校对应用程序具有更高的性能和更大的一致性。结论:我们发现Wordvice人工智能校对工具的整体功能与人类校对器相当,与其他两个内置自动写作评估校对器的程序(Google Docs和Microsoft Word)相当或优于,这两个程序被数千万用户使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Science Editing
Science Editing COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Science Editing (Sci Ed) is the official journal of the Korean Council of Science Editors (https://kcse.org) and Council of Asian Science Editors (https://asianeditor.org). It aims to improve the culture and health of human being by promoting the quality of editing and publishing scientific, technical, and medical journals. Expected readers are editors, publishers, reviewers, and authors of the journals around the world; however, specially focused to those in Asia. Since scholarly journals in Asia are mostly published by the academic societies, universities, or non-profit organizations, Sci Ed is sought to play a role in journal development. The number of publications from Asia is increasing rapidly and overpass that of other continents; meanwhile, the number of international journals and highly appreciated journals is yet to be coming forward. It is task of Asian editors to pledge the journal quality and broaden the visibility and accessibility. Therefore, its scope includes the followings in the field of science, technology, and medicine.
期刊最新文献
Research trends on resilience related to nursing and patients: a bibliometric analysis Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics Impact factor surge in Korean medical journals during the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric study Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review Get Full Text Research (GetFTR): can it be a good tool for researchers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1