|Image [cc] luisvilla|
The suggestion Barker makes is that there is a need for editors to blend their abilities to synthesize findings from the professional literature and adopt algorithms that can make "it easier for editors to determine the most important points in a document." This process can help "give an editor a head start in creating a meaningful summary that is meaningful to the professional customers."
However, Barker goes a bit farther and sees potential in exposing the algorithm directly to the professional customer in some "low value" content documents… such as unpublished legal opinions that have no precedential value. Let the algorithms set the topical classification, and let that classification set the search, linking and relevance rankings of those documents. The classification will not be as accurate as a human editor's classification, but it increases the value of these documents for the researcher through the algorithmic enhancements. It could even be designed to let the human editor know that there are documents that were initially categorized as "low value" that actually may rise to the level that require a human editor's review.
In a perfect world, every "relevant" professional document would have that human editor's touch. In the world we live in, Barker suggests "that professional publishers must strike a balance between applying algorithms and editors to content." Although Barker does not think that it can completely replace the professional editor, as the technology advances, the algorithmic process can assist at higher and higher levels making the results of the human/computer cyborg editor more valuable to the professional researcher.