---
id: "entity-science-journal"
type: "entity"
entityType: "other"
canonicalName: "Science"
aliases: ["Science (journal)", "Science journal"]
canonical_url: "https://www.science.org"
source_timestamps: ["§ How to Redesign Entry-Level Jobs", "¶14"]
tags: ["academic-journal", "publication"]
related: ["claim-uncritical-ai-use-harms-novices"]
sources: ["reskilling"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-reskilling"
originDay: 10
articleStem: "hbr-edu-46-perils-replace-entry-level"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/the-perils-of-using-ai-to-replace-entry-level-jobs"
sourceTitle: "The Perils of Using AI to Replace Entry-Level Jobs"
---
# Science (journal)

**Science** is the peer-reviewed academic journal cited as publishing the study behind [[claim-uncritical-ai-use-harms-novices]] — that generative AI can boost output by ~40% in text tasks but harms the performance of novices who accept suggestions uncritically. (Modeled as `entityType: other` because a journal/publication is not a person, organization, product, tool, or place.)

**Enrichment context:** *Science* publishes peer-reviewed work on AI's impact on productivity and decision-making, including studies showing large productivity gains from generative AI alongside risks from over-reliance and automation bias. Note the extraction's specific '40% gain + worse novice performance' pairing likely composites findings from multiple studies rather than a single *Science* article — see the caveat in [[claim-uncritical-ai-use-harms-novices]].