Title Who Is the Author and Why Is the Problem Still Unsolved? AI and the Failure of Super-Normal Science
Author(s) Laboratory of Information Systems
Affiliation New Euro Vision: exhibitions, marketing, research s.r.o.
Country Czech Republic
Contribution type conceptual paper; methodological paper
Thematic area • Theory, Methodology, and Evidence
Conference framework connection • Analytical Track AT-01 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-02 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-03 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-04 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-05 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-06 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-07 — provisional title to be defined
Abstract The use of artificial intelligence in science is frequently constrained by questions of authorship, plagiarism, and attribution. These questions are legitimate when they concern misrepresentation, concealed borrowing, or the absence of human responsibility for a published claim. They become counterproductive, however, when authorship is treated as the principal measure of scientific value while the problem under investigation remains unresolved.
This contribution examines the paradox of precisely attributed fragments within an unresolved scientific object. Individual publications have named authors, accepted methods, disciplinary affiliations, peer review, and traceable citations. Nevertheless, no author or institution necessarily accepts responsibility for integrating these fragments into an explanation of the complete process. Clear authorship of every component does not guarantee understanding of the system they collectively describe.
Building on Thomas Kuhn’s concept of normal science, the paper introduces the concept of super-normal science: a condition in which accepted procedures continue to be reproduced even when they repeatedly fail to resolve the real problem. The century-long investigation of Verdun and the Somme illustrates this condition. Military history, archaeology, geomorphology, remote sensing, soil science, and environmental chemistry have produced exceptional knowledge of separate objects. Yet the continuous material history connecting ammunition use, unexploded ordnance, clearance, demolition, residues, soil transformation, freshwater transport, and delayed exposure remains inadequately reconstructed.
Artificial intelligence makes this fragmentation more visible because it reduces the practical cost of comparison and integration across disciplines. This does not eliminate authorship. It requires a more explicit standard. A responsible human author formulates and approves the scientific claims. The AI system and version are recorded as part of the research configuration. Its functional contribution—such as search, translation, synthesis, modelling, or drafting—is disclosed. Evidence provenance and significant transformations remain traceable.
The decisive evaluative question then changes. In addition to asking who produced a text, scientific assessment must ask how far the work advanced recognition or resolution of the problem. In this standard, the expert–AI system becomes the operative cognitive unit, while final scientific responsibility remains human.
Key points • Known authorship of individual fragments does not ensure understanding or resolution of the complete problem.
• Super-normal science reproduces accepted procedures even when the real scientific object remains unrecognized.
• Research on Verdun and the Somme demonstrates the difference between increasing disciplinary resolution and reconstructing an integrated process.
• AI assistance is not itself plagiarism when sources, transformations, the AI configuration, and human responsibility are disclosed.
• Scientific value must include an explicit assessment of how far the work advances problem recognition or resolution.
Keywords artificial intelligence; scientific authorship; plagiarism; super-normal science; scientist–AI system; war-related environmental contamination; Verdun; Somme; disciplinary fragmentation; problem resolution
Main discussion question How should scientific authorship be defined when research is conducted through an expert–AI system and the principal criterion is advancement toward recognition and resolution of the real problem?
OJS publication link https://pollution-diseases-ojs.org/index.php/pd/article/view/75
Note. Analytical TracksIn addition to the main thematic areas, the conference programme will include several cross-cutting analytical tracks. These tracks will be defined during the preparation of the programme, based on the submitted abstracts and the emerging links between presentations.At the preliminary stage, abstracts may be assigned to provisional analytical tracks marked as AT-01 to AT-07. Final track titles will be announced after the Scientific Committee has reviewed the submitted materials.