Augmenting Technical Editors: A Quasi-Experimental Study of AI-Assisted Copyediting

Technical editing research has examined the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, yet empirical studies on their effectiveness remain limited. This quasi-experimental study investigates whether an AI-assisted tool improves copyediting performance and explores editor perceptions. The study compared 33 students’ editing performance with and without AI assistance. The results showed that an AI tool provided selective benefits, failing to raise overall correction rates but improving detection of AI-flagged errors. Perceptions varied by skill level, with stronger editors finding AI to be more distracting than helpful. The authors consider the teaching implications of this study and suggest that future research should test the effectiveness of various AI tools across different technical content types.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519261485218
Primary Topic
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Augmenting Technical Editors: A Quasi-Experimental Study of AI-Assisted Copyediting

Chris Lam, Ryan K. Boettger, Kim Sydow Campbell
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Academic integrity and plagiarism
article

Augmenting Technical Editors: A Quasi-Experimental Study of AI-Assisted Copyediting

Chris Lam, Ryan K. Boettger, Kim Sydow Campbell
article en

Abstract

Technical editing research has examined the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, yet empirical studies on their effectiveness remain limited. This quasi-experimental study investigates whether an AI-assisted tool improves copyediting performance and explores editor perceptions. The study compared 33 students’ editing performance with and without AI assistance. The results showed that an AI tool provided selective benefits, failing to raise overall correction rates but improving detection of AI-flagged errors. Perceptions varied by skill level, with stronger editors finding AI to be more distracting than helpful. The authors consider the teaching implications of this study and suggest that future research should test the effectiveness of various AI tools across different technical content types.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
University of North Texas (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Academic integrity and plagiarism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Augmenting Technical Editors: A Quasi-Experimental Study of AI-Assisted Copyediting — Chris Lam, Ryan K. Boettger, et al. · Journal of Business and Technical Communication (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS