Narrative objects of science: From industrialization to the cobotization of the interpretive experience

Viviana Martinovich Doctor in Collective Health. Professor-researcher, Institute of Collective Health, Universidad Nacional de Lanús, Buenos Aires, Argentina. image/svg+xml
Received: 30 March 2025, Accepted: 25 August 2025, Published: 27 August 2025 Open Access
https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2025.5658
Article views
1626
Metrics Loading ...

Abstract


Drawing on critical theory and philosophical hermeneutics, this essay examines the processes of industrialization and “cobotization” of scientific practice, understood as the incorporation of generative artificial intelligence into the production and validation of scientific knowledge. The text addresses, first, the narrative objects of science, understood as devices for building consensus within scientific communities; second, the effects of the industrialization of scientific practice, the expansion of the scientific-editorial industrial complex, and the loss of the social meaning of the text; and third, the shift from industrialization to cobotization, both in the interpretive experience of science and in the processes of scientific validation that technify communicative action. These processes, which erode and disarticulate language communities, highlight the need to recover the interpretive experience as an intrinsically human action and to revalue our own environments of scientific validation, in order to restore the relational, situated, and reflective character of communicative action that is intrinsic to the narrative objects of science.

Keywords: Critical Theory, Scientific Research, Industrialization, Cobotization

Categories: Epistemology

Full-text of the article is available for this language: Español.


References


1. Habermas J. Teoría de la acción comunicativa I: Racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social. México DF: Taurus; 2002.

2. Pool R, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) (eds.). Hurdles for AI for scientific discovery. En: AI for scientific discovery: proceedings of a workshop. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2024.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

3. Krenn M, Pollice R, Guo SY, Aldeghi M, Cervera-Lierta A, Friederich P, et al. On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence. Nature Reviews Physics. 2022;4(12):761-769.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

4. Danks D, London AJ. Algorithmic bias in autonomous systems. En: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence [Internet]. Melbourne: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization; 2017 [citado 9 oct 2024]. p. 4691-4697. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/37kbyjxs.
Crossref | Google Scholar

5. Dastin J. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters [Internet]. 2018 [citado 5 jul 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/bde6949n.
Crossref | Google Scholar

6. Fu R, Huang Y, Singh PV. AI and Algorithmic Bias: Source, Detection, Mitigation and Implications. SSRN. 2020:3681517.
Crossref | Google Scholar

7. Leavy S. Gender Bias in Artificial Intelligence: The Need for Diversity and Gender Theory in Machine Learning. Sweden: IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering; 2018. p. 14-16.
Crossref | Google Scholar

8. Panch T, Mattie H, Atun R. Artificial intelligence and algorithmic bias: implications for health systems. Journal of Global Health. 2019;9(2).
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

9. Peters U. Algorithmic Political Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems. Philosophy & Technology. 2022;35(2):25.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

10. Seyyed-Kalantari L, Zhang H, McDermott MBA, Chen IY, Ghassemi M. Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations. Nature Medicine. 2021;27(12):2176-82.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

11. Ctrl. Alt. Tim. Vol. 24 - Here is a revised version of your review with improved clarity [Internet]. 2025 [citado 5 jul 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/bdh4dcpm.

12. Naddaf M. AI is transforming peer review — and many scientists are worried. Nature. 2025;639(8056):852-854.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

13. Martinovich V. Scientific journals as narrative objects of the sciences. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2025;30(Supl 1).
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

14. Gadamer HG. Verdad y método. 11a ed. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme; 2005.

15. Gadamer HG. Verdad y método II. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme; 2006.

16. Ricœur P. Del texto a la acción. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1986.

17. Martinovich V. Revistas científicas como objetos narrativos de las ciencias: los Anales de la Sociedad Científica Argentina y las conversaciones de las ciencias del último tercio del siglo XIX [Tesis de Doctorado]. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Lanús; 2025.
Crossref | Google Scholar

18. Horkheimer M. Traditionelle und kritische Theorie. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. 1937;6(2):245–294.
Crossref | Google Scholar

19. Horkheimer M, Marcuse H. Philosophie und kritische Theorie. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. 1937;6(3):625–647.
Crossref | Google Scholar

20. The Poison Gas Protocol. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, News Edition. 1926;4(23):4.

21. Science Service. Public gets benefit of poison gas patent. Journal of Chemical Education. 1931;8(7):1395.
Crossref | Google Scholar

22. Habermas J. Ciencia y técnica como “ideología”. 5a ed. Madrid: Tecnos; 2007.

23. Biagioli M. From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures. 2002;12(1):11–45.
Crossref | Google Scholar

24. Daniel HD. Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. Weinheim: VCH; 1993.
Crossref | Google Scholar

25. Ravetz JR. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Clarendon Press; 1971.

26. Martinovich V. Indicadores de citación y relevancia científica: Genealogía de una representación. Dados. 2020;63(2):e20190094.
Crossref | Google Scholar

27. Weinberg AM. Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States: Big science is here to stay, but we have yet to make the hard financial and educational choices it imposes. Science. 1961;134(3473):161–164.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

28. Angell M. Publish or Perish: A Proposal. Annals Internal Medicine. 1986;104(2):261–262.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

29. Neill US. Publish or perish, but at what cost? Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2008;118(7):2368–2368.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

30. Cook A. Academic Publications before 1940. En: Fredriksson EH, (ed). A century of science publishing: A collection of essays. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2001. p. 14–24.
Crossref | Google Scholar

31. Alberts B. Impact factor distortions. Science. 2013;340(6134): 787–787.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

32. Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P. Citation statistics: International Mathematical Union, International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Institute of Mathematical Statistics [Internet]. 2008 [citado 29 sep 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/yskjsw38.

33. Camargo Jr. KR. Public health and the knowledge industry. Revista de Saúde Pública. 2009;43(6):1078–283.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

34. Schekman R. How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian [Internet]. 2013 [citado 5 oct 2024]; Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/yc5z2d9h.

35. Renan Costa KA, Silveira Santo T, Nara Macedo B, Petroianu A. Citação de artigos nacionais: a (des)valorização dos periódicos brasileiros. Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões. 2012;39:421–4.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

36. Bothwell LE, Podolsky SH. The emergence of the randomized, controlled trial. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;375(6):501-504.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

37. Fassi G. El plan de publicaciones de la industria farmacéutica y su contribución al proceso de farmacologización de la sociedad: aproximación a estrategias, prácticas y actores presentes en la bibliografía científica. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Lanús; 2023.

38. Carlisle JB. Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(8):944-952.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

39. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011;37(4):249-253.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

40. Freijedo-Farinas F, Ruano-Ravina A, Pérez-Ríos M, Ross J, Candal-Pedreira C. Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterization and trends in the last 20 years. Scientometrics. 2024;129(5):2867–2882.
Crossref | Google Scholar

41. Lisberger SG. Sound the alarm: fraud in neuroscience. Cerebrum. 2013:6. PMDI: 23847713.

42. Else H. Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers. Nature. 2023;613(7945):617-618.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

43. Van Noorden R. How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature. 2023;623(7987):466-467.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

44. Fagan J, Traavik T, Bøhn T. The Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science? Environmental Sciences Europe. 2015;27(1):19.
Crossref | Google Scholar

45. Loening UE. A challenge to scientific integrity: a critique of the critics of the GMO rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. (2012). Environmental Sciences Europe. 2015;27(1):13.
Crossref | Google Scholar

46. Augé M. Los “no lugares”: espacios del anonimato. Barcelona: Gedisa; 2000.

47. Osika G. Humanistic and Social Dimensions of Cobotization in the Context of Implementation Industry 5.0. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology Organization & Management. 2022;165(165):259-274.
Crossref | Google Scholar

48. Wierzbowski P. Cobotization as a key element in the functioning of smart factories and a next step in the automation of logistic processes. Research Journal of the University of Gdańsk. 2019;82:171-183.
Crossref | Google Scholar

49. Jasińska K, Lewicz M, Rostalski M. Digitization of the enterprise - prospects for process automation with using RPA and GPT integration. Procedia Computer Science. 2023;225(4):3243-3254.
Crossref | Google Scholar

50. Cevasco L, Corvalán JG, Le Fevre Servini EM. Artificial Intelligence and Work: Building a New Employment Paradigm [Internet]. Buenos Aires: Astrea; 2019 [citado 5 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/2un2ydt4.

51. Borboni A, Reddy KVV, Elamvazuthi I, AL-Quraishi MS, Natarajan E, Azhar Ali SS. The Expanding Role of Artificial Intelligence in Collaborative Robots for Industrial Applications: A Systematic Review of Recent Works. Machines. 2023;11(1):111.
Crossref | Google Scholar

52. Das S, Dey A, Pal A, Roy N. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Machine Learning: Review and Prospect. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2015;115(9):31-41.
Crossref | Google Scholar

53. Marcuse H. El hombre unidimensional. Barcelona: Ariel; 1984.

54. Haraway D. Manifiesto cyborg: ciencia, tecnología y feminismo socialista a finales del siglo XX. Titivillus; 2019.

55. Almeida Filho N. Metapresentiality: a foundational concept for a critical theory of digital health. Salud Colectiva. 2023;19:e4655.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

56. Ayres JRCM. Cuidado: tecnologia ou sabedoria prática. Interface. 2000;4(6):117–120.
Crossref | Google Scholar

57. Ayres JRCM. Acerca del riesgo: Para comprender la epidemiología. Remedios de Escalada: De la UNLa - Universidad Nacional de Lanús; 2024.
Crossref | Google Scholar

58. Merhy EE. Um ensaio sobre o médico e suas valises tecnológicas: contribuições para compreender as reestruturações produtivas do setor saúde. Interface. 2000;4:109-116.
Crossref | Google Scholar

59. Schraiber LB. El médico y la medicina: autonomía y vínculos de confianza en la práctica profesional del siglo XX. Remedios de Escalada: De la UNLa - Universidad Nacional de Lanús; 2019.

60. Gonçalves RBM. Tecnologia e organização social das práticas de saúde: características tecnológicas de processo de trabalho na rede estadual de centros de saúde de São Paulo. São Paulo: HUCITEC-ABRASCO; 1994.

61. Merhy EE. Salud: cartografía del trabajo vivo. Remedios de Escalada: De la UNLa - Universidad Nacional de Lanús; 2021.
Crossref | Google Scholar

62. Lyons M. El siglo de la máquina de escribir. Buenos Aires: Ampersand; 2023.

63. Heidegger M. Parmenides. Indiana: Indiana University Press; 1992.

64. Benuwa BB, Zhan YZ, Ghansah B, Wornyo DK, Kataka FB. A Review of Deep Machine Learning. International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa. 2016;24:124-136.
Crossref | Google Scholar

65. Bhatia P. ChatGPT for academic writing: A game changer or a disruptive tool? Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology. 2023;39(1):1-2.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

66. Hashana AMJ, Brundha P, Ahamed Ayoobkhan MU, S F. Deep Learning in ChatGPT - A Survey. En: 2023 7th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI) [Internet]. 2023 [citado 24 oct 2024]. p. 1001-1005. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/sad845nh.
Crossref | Google Scholar

67. Crotty D. The Scholarly Kitchen: The Latest “Crisis” - Is the Research Literature Overrun with ChatGPT- and LLM-generated Articles? [Internet]. 2024 [citado 24 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/yc7smj89.

68. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI tools [Internet]. 2023 [citado 6 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/4bde55fw.

69. Wiley. Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics [Internet]. 2024 [citado 6 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/4pnmsx8c.

70. Carr D. Tiempo, narrativa e historia. Buenos Aires: Prometeo; 2015.

71. Martinovich V, Drucaroff L. ¿Qué sentirías si un robot realizara acciones en tu nombre? El caso de Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant (AIRA) y la cobotización del proceso de revisión por pares. SciELO Preprints; 2023.
Crossref | Google Scholar

72. Thelwall M. Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Peer Review. 2019 [citado 4 jul 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/5f3jf38j.

73. Frontiers. Artificial Intelligence to help meet global demand for high-quality, objective peer-review in publishing 2 [Internet]. Frontiers Science News. 2020 [citado 8 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/yb5jusx8.

74. Ghosal T. Exploring the implications of artificial intelligence in various aspects of scholarly peer review. Bulletin of IEEE Technical Committee on Digital Libraries. 2019;15(1).

75. Habermas J. Teoría de la acción comunicativa II: Crítica de la razón funcionalista. México DF: Taurus; 2002.

76. Macklon N, Garcia-Velasco J. ChatGPT and scientific publications: friend or foe? Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2023;47(1):1-2.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

77. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA. Chance and Consensus in Peer Review. Science. 1981;214(4523):881-886.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

78. Björk BC, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics. 2013;7(4):914-923.
Crossref | Google Scholar

79. Ibrahim H, Liu X, Zariffa N, Morris AD, Denniston AK. Health data poverty: an assailable barrier to equitable digital health care. The Lancet Digital Health. 2021;3(4):e260-e265.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

80. Lovejoy CA, Arora A, Buch V, Dayan I. Digital Technology: Key considerations for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare and clinical research. Future Healthcare Journal. 2022;9(1):75-78.
Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar

81. Santos BS. O Fim do Império Cognitivo - A afirmação das epistemologias do sul. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica; 2019.

82. Couldry N, Mejias UA. Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject. Television & New Media. 2018;20(4):336-349.
Crossref | Google Scholar

83. Grynbaum MM, Mac R. The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted Work. The New York Times [Internet]. 2023 [citado 24 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/4tar2vxm.

84. Basu S. Academic authors alarmed over Taylor & Francis and Microsoft AI deal [Internet]. 2024 [citado 24 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/52d2j8j9.

85. Battersby M, The Bookseller. Academic authors “shocked” after Taylor & Francis sells access to their research to Microsoft AI [Internet]. 2024 [citado 24 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/jjyw63vc.

86. OpenAI. Partnership with Axel Springer to deepen beneficial use of AI in journalism [Internet]. 2023 [citado 23 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/372w7659.

87. OpenAI. A landmark multi-year global partnership with News Corp [Internet]. 2024 [citado 23 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/u93aukds.

88. Snoswell AJ, Witzenberger K, Masri RE. A weird phrase is plaguing scientific papers – and we traced it back to a glitch in AI training data [Internet]. The Conversation. 2025 [citado 19 ago 2025]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/4d7bnp3k.
Crossref | Google Scholar

89. Joelving F. As a nonsense phrase of shady provenance makes the rounds, Elsevier defends its use [Internet]. Retraction Watch; 2025 [citado 19 ago 2025]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/3e2sjute.

90. Spohrer J. Personal AI digital twins: the future of human interaction? [Internet]. EIT Digital. 2024 [citado 24 oct 2024]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/ynybjnvy.



Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC