Ask the Chefs: What is the Single Most Pressing Issue for the Future of Peer Review?
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
Avi Staiman is the founder and CEO of Academic Language Experts, a company dedicated to empowering English as an Additional Language authors to elevate their research for publication and bring it to the world. He also is the co-host of the New Books Network ‘Scholarly Communication’ Podcast. Avi is a core member of CANGARU, where he represents EASE in creating legislation and policy for the responsible use of AI in research.
Avi has been a guest lecturer at NYU’s Master’s Program in Translation & Interpreting and the University of Tokyo and he is a reviewer for Wiley’s Learned Publishing journal. His essays have appeared in the Cambridge University Press Blog, The Scholarly Kitchen, Multilingual, and Times Higher Education.
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
The challenges offered by artificial intelligence require a different approach than that seen for plagiarism detection.
Are scholarly publishers primed to become the critical content suppliers for the big Generative AI companies?
Last January we wrote a group post about “Twexit” and with the launch of Threads we wondered how the Chefs were feeling about the emerging and existing social media options.
As co-host of the Scholarly Communication Podcast, I’ve spent the last six months speaking with university press publishers and small to mid-size commercial book publishers. Here’s what I’ve learned.
Avi Staiman discusses the value that ChatGPT can bring to scholarly communication, particularly leveling the playing field for English as an Additional Language authors.
Avi Staiman discusses how meaningful engagement with authors early in the research process can yield significant benefits to publishers and journals.
Avi Staiman suggests revamping the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.