Guest Post — Scholarly AI Search Shortcomings and the Need for Better Metadata
AI scholarly search tools often miss important literature due to incomplete metadata. Better full-text-derived metadata could significantly improve discovery.
AI scholarly search tools often miss important literature due to incomplete metadata. Better full-text-derived metadata could significantly improve discovery.
Today’s post shares the results of an initiative designed to answer the question: what would it actually take to build a publishing model fit for the research ecosystem we have now, rather than the one we inherited?
For scholarly publishers, the user has changed faster than the systems designed to serve them, and the gap between the two is where most of the difficult work is happening.
Today, we feature a friendly debate on the question: which parts of the research lifecycle should be more automated, and which require more of a human touch — and why?
The threat of zero-click search makes organizational brand more important than ever and presents a huge opportunity.
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.
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.
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.
Today’s guest bloggers call for society publishers to recognize their unique role in shaping the systems researchers use to discover and evaluate knowledge.
As AI-driven search reduces friction in information-seeking, what happens to serendipity, frustration, and “night science”?
AI-driven zero-click search is widening the gap between visibility and usage, threatening publisher revenue, research integrity, and trust. How should we respond?
Todd Carpenter looks back on the past quarter century of a digital revolution in scholarly publishing.
As with previous shifts in content discovery, today’s winners will be those who understand the strengths and limits of AI search, and design systems that let researchers move fluidly between precision and synthesis.