Guest Post — Love, Death & Robots: Scholarly Edition
Today’s guest post proposes a method for identifying, measuring, and managing robotic usage of scholarly content.
Today’s guest post proposes a method for identifying, measuring, and managing robotic usage of scholarly content.
Today’s post asks: If research is increasingly accessed through AI-generated summaries rather than via primary sources, then what does it mean to “engage with research” at all?
Today’s guest post sounds an alarm about the use of AI in research and warns that no amount of computational efficiency can compensate for the loss of our capacity for human thought.
The new STM Trends 2030 was released, symbolizing a world full of opportunities but also with dangers lying just below the surface for scholarly publishing.
AI in science should not be viewed merely as a productivity tool layered onto existing workflows. It represents a structural shift in how knowledge moves through society, and therefore in how scientific authority is established and maintained.
There is more and more skepticism toward the role of publishers, a steady commoditization of publishing services, and growing fragmentation across the research ecosystem. If that is the case, the question is no longer what publishers do, but how that value is understood and extended.
Today’s post recaps a lively roundtable conversation with library and information science experts who have been guest bloggers for TSK and active SSP participants.
Faced with technological shifts not seen since the advent of the internet, Todd Toler and Angela Cochran posit that the biggest challenges for organizations building an AI strategy are human, not technology.
Wendy Queen interviews Nadim Sadek. Nadim is a creative strategist and founder of Shimmr AI, who argues that AI can strengthen human creativity rather than replace it.
As AI systems increasingly reason from the scientific literature, the integrity signals that make research trustworthy — open data, structured metadata, robust retraction processes — matter more than ever. PLOS CEO Alison Mudditt on why open access publishers have a different set of obligations in an AI world.
In this post, Robert attempts to embrace a gloomy optimism as he muses on the state of publishing at scholarly societies.
A new STM Association paper seeks to foster a discussion about how GenAI systems can reliably incorporate scholarly research.
Today’s post asserts that peer review, which is still of vital importance to science, is clearly failing in the current age — could AI save the day?
In 2018 at SSP New Directions, Neil Blair Christensen and Angela Cochran participated in an Oxford debate on the use of AI in Peer Review. Today, they revisit their main points and reflect on where they think we are today and will likely be in another 8 years.
Today’s post explores issues facing scholarly publishers around AI — using it, layering it, competing against it, and licensing to it.