Science should be machine-readable
Abstract
We develop a machine-automated approach for extracting results from papers, which we assess via a comprehensive review of the entire eLife corpus. Our method facilitates a direct comparison of machine and peer review, and sheds light on key challenges that must be overcome in order to facilitate AI-assisted science. In particular, the results point the way towards a machine-readable framework for disseminating scientific information. We therefore argue that publication systems should optimize separately for the dissemination of data and results versus the conveying of novel ideas, and the former should be machine-readable.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 3
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- ReviewBench: An Extensible Framework for Benchmarking Human and AI Manuscript Review
Natalie N. Khalil, T. J. Reed, Matteo R. Ciccozzi·bioRxiv·Apr 20, 2026
- Set-up, validation, evaluation, and cost-benefit analysis of an AI-assisted assessment of responsible research practices in a sample of life science publications
Silke Kniffert, Ben Katthöfer, … Ulf Toelch·bioRxiv·Feb 2, 2026
- Ten simple rules for structuring papers
K. P. Kording, B. Mensh·bioRxiv·May 23, 2017
- The Readability Of Scientific Texts Is DecreasingOver Time
P. Plaven-Sigray, G. J. Matheson, … W. H. Thompson·bioRxiv·Mar 28, 2017
- Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It
Sergei L. Kosakovsky Pond, Steven Weaver, … Anton Nekrutenko·bioRxiv·Nov 4, 2026
- DOME Copilot: A resource to automate transparent reporting of artificial intelligence methods
Gavin Farrell, Omar Abdelghani Attafi, … Silvio C. E. Tosatto·bioRxiv·Jul 24, 2026