Today’s guest post spotlights a new scientific intelligence engine inspired by Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution and the mission to give humanity the ability to see its own progress while it unfolds.
Rather than just bolting on AI to existing publication workflows,there is a real opportunity to rethink and redesign them for human–AI collaboration. Some thoughts on what that looks like in practice.
We talk a lot about AI in scholarly communications and publishing, but today, we ask the Chefs: What’s your favorite AI hack?
To kick off Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs, What’s a bold experiment with AI in peer review you’d like to see tested?
As AI becomes a major consumer of research, scholarly publishing must evolve: from PDFs for people to structured, high-quality data for machines.
A scholarly communication ecosystem that relies on voluntary support rather than charging for access to content becomes radically less capable of keeping money in the system.
Scholarly communications leaders have the opportunity to turn AI uncertainty into discovery.
Robert Harington talks to Matt Kissner, CEO of Wiley, in this series of perspectives from some of Publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and for-profit sectors of our industry.
A public service announcement about the dangers of picnics in thunderstorms.
BBC Maestro has delivered a writing course taught by a speaking and moving on-screen image of Agatha Christie. Did the AI behind it succeed?
Academic libraries’ first and most fundamental obligation is to support the work of their host institutions. This doesn’t preclude global engagement, but may put constraints upon it.
India’s recently announced One Nation, One Subscription plan is in some ways an audacious step into the future and, in other ways, an embrace of the past. What are its implications?
On September 20, 2024, MIT Press hosted a workshop, Access to Science & Scholarship: An Evidence Base to Support the Future of Open Research Policy. I interviewed Amy Brand to discuss the goals and outcomes of the workshop.
DORA’s reaction to Clarivate’s decision to no longer fully index eLife (and, therefore, not to give it a Journal Impact Factor) seems inconsistent with both its and eLife’s public positions, and based on the mistaken belief that “disruption” is an absolute good in itself.
As we enter the bleak months of winter, now is the time to ponder the really important questions, like, what would happen if every person on earth shined a laser pointer on the moon?