Artificial intelligence in chemistry and scientific publishing
Read an interview with Nebojsa Pantelic, Editor-in-Chief of Open Chemistry.
Nebojsa Pantelic is a Full Professor of Chemistry at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Serbia. He teaches natural product chemistry and researches at the interface of food chemistry and bioinorganic chemistry.
He has served as Editor-in-Chief of Open Chemistry since 2025.
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform all aspects of life and work, it is creating new opportunities to support research, analyse data, and accelerate scientific discovery.
In this interview, we discuss the growing role of AI in chemistry and scientific publishing, exploring its potential benefits and strengths, as well as where caution and careful consideration are needed.
The interview was conducted by Open Access Portfolio Manager, Małgorzata Komadowska.
Małgorzata Komadowska: AI is developing extremely rapidly and is already changing the way chemistry research is conducted, analyzed and communicated. How do you see AI changing chemistry research over the next five to ten years? Which areas of chemistry do you think will benefit the most from AI, and are there any areas where you think AI could have a potentially negative impact?
Nebojsa Pantelic: I believe AI will become an increasingly important tool in chemistry over the next five to ten years, particularly in areas where large and complex datasets need to be analyzed. I expect significant progress in drug discovery, materials chemistry, computational chemistry, and the prediction of molecular properties and chemical reactions. I also see considerable potential in food chemistry, where AI can help integrate complex compositional, nutritional, and physicochemical data and support the development and optimization of new products.
At the same time, I think we should be careful not to rely too heavily on AI-generated predictions without proper experimental validation. Chemistry is an experimental science, and AI should support scientific reasoning rather than replace it.
MK: Do you see "AI for Chemistry" as an important independent research area, or mainly as a methodology that will become integrated into different areas of chemistry?
NP: I think it can be viewed in both ways. “AI for Chemistry” is certainly becoming an important research area of its own, but for most chemists, I believe AI will increasingly become a methodology integrated into different fields of chemistry. Its real value will come from combining AI-based approaches with chemical knowledge and experimental data to answer specific scientific questions.
MK: Generative AI and large language models are becoming increasingly common in scientific research. What is your opinion about the use of tools such as ChatGPT in chemistry research?
NP: I see tools such as ChatGPT as useful assistants in scientific research when they are used responsibly. They can be very helpful for improving language, organizing ideas, or making scientific communication clearer, particularly for researchers who are not native English speakers. They can also help researchers explore a topic or look at a problem from a different perspective.
However, there should be a clear boundary. AI should never be used to fabricate results, generate unsupported scientific conclusions, or replace the researcher’s own critical thinking. Researchers must always verify the information provided by AI and remain fully responsible for the scientific content of their work.
MK: AI and machine learning are already being used for areas such as molecular design, drug discovery, materials development, reaction prediction and computational chemistry. Do you think Open Chemistry should actively encourage more submissions involving AI and machine learning?
NP: Yes, I think Open Chemistry should encourage high-quality submissions involving AI and machine learning. These approaches are becoming increasingly relevant across many areas of chemistry and fit very well with the broad and interdisciplinary scope of the journal. However, the use of AI itself should not be considered a measure of novelty or scientific quality.
MK: There is also a growing concern about manuscripts being substantially generated or assisted by AI. Do you think that this happens a lot in our journal?
NP: It is difficult to know how frequently AI is used in manuscripts submitted to the journal, particularly because its use is not always disclosed. However, we occasionally receive manuscripts that show signs of substantial AI assistance, such as repetitive or overly generic writing, exaggerated claims, or inconsistencies between the methodology, results, and conclusions.
MK: How concerned are you about AI-generated manuscripts, peer-review reports or scientific content?
Do you think publishers should use AI-detection tools, or should the emphasis remain on editorial judgement and research-integrity checks?
NP: I am certainly concerned when AI is used to generate scientific content without adequate human verification, and this applies both to manuscripts and peer-review reports. A scientifically convincing text can still contain incorrect information, inappropriate references, or conclusions that are not supported by the results.
AI-detection tools can be useful as an additional screening tool, but I would not rely on them alone. I believe editorial judgement and research-integrity checks should remain central, because ultimately we need to evaluate the reliability and scientific quality of the work, not simply whether AI may have been used in preparing the text.
MK: Do you think Open Chemistry should develop or strengthen specific guidelines concerning the use of AI by authors, reviewers and editors? What principles should such a policy include (if not yet included)?
NP: I think the existing guidelines should continue to evolve as AI tools develop and become more widely used in scientific publishing. The most important principles, in my view, are transparency and responsibility. Authors should disclose the use of AI when appropriate and remain fully responsible for the scientific content of their work. Similar principles should apply to reviewers and editors, particularly with regard to confidentiality. AI can be a useful supporting tool, but it should never replace scientific judgement.
MK: What would you say to researchers working at the intersection of AI and chemistry who are considering submitting their work to Open Chemistry?
NP: I would encourage them to consider Open Chemistry as a platform for their research. As a broad and interdisciplinary journal, we welcome high-quality studies that combine AI and machine learning with different areas of chemistry. We would be very pleased to receive more contributions in this rapidly developing field.
Submit to Open Chemistry
Open Chemistry is a peer-reviewed open access journal that publishes original research, reviews, and communications in the fields of chemistry in an ongoing way.
Our central goal is to provide a hub for researchers working across all subjects to present their discoveries, and to be a forum for the discussion of the important issues in the field.
Resources for Authors
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date with the latest journals and books in your field.
