Was a recent Scholarly Kitchen piece analyzing the capabilities of ChatGPT a fair test? What happens if you run a similar test with an improved prompt on LLMs that are internet connected and up to date?
How does the shift to interdisciplinary research reshape the very foundation of how knowledge is generated and applied across various fields and what do the different stakeholders in academia need to do to balance the depth of specialized knowledge with the breadth of interdisciplinary understanding?
What else was happening during well known historical events? Where did the fax machine and the Oregon Trail overlap? What about Woolly Mammoths and the Great Pyramids?
Studying the way we’ve studied the past is mutual work. Archivists and librarians, and scholars using their collections, have each been producing critical archives scholarship that too often remains within disciplinary and professional siloes.
What uses for artificial intelligence (AI) might we expect outside of the publication workflow? Some answers to this question can be found through the lenses of sustainability, justice, and resilience.
Coinciding with the launch of Healthcare Information for All’s global community survey, Alice Meadows interviews their Global Coordinator, Neil Pakenham-Walsh, about his organization’s work to ensure equitable access to reliable healthcare information for everyone.
To identify both benefits and risks of generative AI for our industry, we tested ChatGPT and Google Bard for authoring, for submission and reviews, for publishing, and for discovery and dissemination.
Twelve years after the Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) launched, I wonder: How are scholarly content providers leveraging ODI conformance statements to drive transparency and usage via web-scale library discovery services?
The STM Association has launched an SDG roadmap. It is a list of suggested steps to provide inspiration and pathways to navigate the sustainability initiatives and actions that publishers and societies can undertake.
While higher rates of endogeny can help indexes identify journals being used for self-promotion, nepotism, or other unethical ends, endogeny itself should not be equated with them and can be the result of a narrow or new field of research.