The age of AI is fascinating but sometimes confusing. It’s paradoxical to develop a revolutionary technology, only to immediately introduce new tools to push against or bypass that very same technology.
AI detectors, AI humanizers, AI writers claiming their content won’t be flagged as AI-generated, and even tools that monitor students’ screens during assignments to make sure they are not using AI are mushrooming all over the Internet.
While there’s not an iota of doubt that AI has added a ton of value to our lives as a species, the overextension of its use has tarnished the image of this technology and led to the development of tools that feel unnecessary.
The field of publishing, both scientific and non-scientific, is one of the areas where the overuse of AI has prompted publications to clearly state in their guidelines that AI-generated content is not allowed or should only be used for brainstorming.
TechCrunch, a leading technology publication, for example, has made its stance on generative AI clear in its guest column guidelines: “We do not accept contributions that include text or images produced via generative artificial intelligence.”
The editorial policy of Science, one of the world’s leading peer-reviewed academic journals, places great emphasis on authorship: “AI-assisted technologies [such as large language models (LLMs), chatbots, and image creators] do not meet the Science journals’ criteria for authorship and therefore may not be listed as authors or coauthors, nor may sources cited in Science journal content be authored or coauthored by AI tools.”
“AI-assisted technologies [such as large language models (LLMs), chatbots, and image creators] do not meet the Science journals’ criteria for authorship and therefore may not be listed as authors or coauthors, nor may sources cited in Science journal content be authored or coauthored by AI tools.”
— Science journal
It requires authors to disclose specific details about their use of AI and also prohibits reviewers from using “AI technology in generating or writing their reviews because this could breach the confidentiality of the manuscript.”
Similarly, the publication terms of The World Economic Forum state: “The use of artificial intelligence—specifically LLMs—should be limited to generating ideas or helping with structure, but not as a sole research tool or to generate unedited or unverified content.”
It asks authors and creators who use LLM tools for background work to make this clear when pitching their article, emphasizing that “the Forum’s reputation carries with it accountability and a need for fresh thinking.”
Fresh thinking…
Isn’t that the real purpose of a publication?
The editorial guidelines reminding us of this fact are counterintuitive, but they are emphasized today more than ever as we tend to forget that publishing was originally intended as the next logical step after “creating,” not “regurgitating” old ideas—which is exactly what AI does when it is used to write from scratch.
This is why, like us, you may have come across editors on social media platforms expressing their frustration with the increasing number of AI-generated pitches.
Whether you’re a journalist covering a story, a blogger who wants to follow Google’s AI content recommendations, a student writing your thesis, an academic looking to publish your research paper, a startup founder working on an opinion piece, an author writing a book, or an expert crafting a thought leadership article, prioritizing originality always pays off.
It’s true that AI-generated material looks and sounds more “perfect,” especially if you’re not a native English speaker. However, expressing fresh, personal ideas, perspectives, insights, and findings not only enriches your content and helps you comply with publishing guidelines, but also appeals to and builds trust with readers—especially if you’re writing for an informed audience.
And we believe you agree that there’s an unbeatable sense of fulfillment in sharing your original ideas—resulting from a critical thinking process—and in reading and listening to those of others.
But what’s the solution?
How can you convey your original ideas in your own voice without watering down the details, while ensuring correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and adhering to publication standards and AI usage guidelines?
That’s where InstaText comes in.
InstaText is not an AI content generation tool, but an editing assistant—powered by advanced language technologies—that helps native and non-native speakers express their thoughts more clearly and make their texts more readable.
It improves your texts by enhancing your style and word choice and eliminating redundant words to ensure conciseness.
InstaText’s web-based editor, browser extensions, and the fact that it can be used in offline and online applications such as Microsoft Word, Google Docs, LaTeX, Overleaf and many others means you can access it almost anywhere you need it.
Its few, carefully selected, and intuitive features—like an advanced personal dictionary and options for formal or informal tone and British or American English—make it easy for you to customize the editing process to suit your preferences and requirements.
What’s more, the interactivity of feedback, which allows you to accept or reject suggestions, puts you in control and helps you write more mindfully and sharpen your writing skills during the editing process.
InstaText also does not overwhelm you with multiple suggestions for each word and does not explain the suggested edits, minimizing the possibility of distractions and decision fatigue.
Plus, it never stores your text, protecting your privacy.
Are you wondering how InstaText differs from other tools like Grammarly?
We’ll leave the table below to explain the specific differences in detail, but in short, InstaText is the ideal tool for publishing purposes as it focuses on the in-depth editing that is crucial in this context. Take a look and try InstaText for free to see how it helps you meet authorship criteria and increase your chances of not just getting published, but doing so successfully!
| Feature/Aspect | Grammarly | InstaText |
|---|---|---|
| Tool type | Writing assistant | Editing assistant |
| Primary use | Proofreading | Editing, proofreading |
| Best stage | Proofreading | Editing |
| Editing depth | Error corrections (grammar, punctuation, tone, and conciseness) | Deep editing (error corrections + clarity, readability, and style improvement) |
| Retaining writer’s voice | Maintains tone but focuses more on correctness | Maintains and enhances writer’s tone and style |
| Content considered AI-generated | Yes, if used extensively for content generation | No (fully respects writer’s authorship) |
| Content suitable for publication where AI-generated content is restricted/not allowed | No, if used extensively for content generation | Yes (scientific and non-scientific) |
| Best for | General users, businesses, students, professionals, copywriters, and content creators | Academics, professionals, journalists, editors, students, general users, copywriters, and content creators |
| Real-time suggestions | Yes (mainly for grammar, tone, and clarity) | Yes (real-time improvements in editing stage) |
| Customization options | Yes (tone, dialect, etc.) | Yes (personal dictionary, tone, dialect, etc.) |
| Platform compatibility | Web-based, browser extensions, multiple applications (Gmail, Slack, Google Docs, Word, etc.) | Web-based, browser extensions, multiple applications (Gmail, Slack, Google Docs, Word, etc.) |
| Privacy | Stores processed texts (with deletion options) | Never stores processed texts |
| Free & paid membership | Yes | Yes |
“InstaText makes your text engaging to read, coherent, and professional-looking. Further, I feel that paragraphs corrected by InstaText look akin to what I see in top marketing and social psychology journals. It is a huge help for an academic writer because rather than focusing on making the text appealing, you can simply focus on what you want to say and build a logically unfolding narration.”
— Dr. Michał Folwarczny, Postdoctoral Researcher
“InstaText is a great tool! I use it to improve English texts such as articles, projects and abstracts for conferences. The tool provides very useful suggestions that help me to translate the text to a professional level so that no additional review by “native speakers” is required. The time and money savings are obvious. I highly recommend it!”
— Dr. Janez Konc, Senior Researcher
“I find InstaText very helpful. It makes me much faster in writing papers. I’m a perfectionist and usually spend (way too) much time finding the right words and making sure that sentences are easily readable even if the concepts are arbitrarily complicated. InstaText makes my life easier. I recommend it to any PhD student or researcher, whether a native English speaker or not.”
— Giulia Guidi, PhD Student, University of California, Berkeley
