Ending Human-Dependent Peer Review
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
How do we strike a balance between humans and AI to improve peer review? We’ve interviewed a few publishing experts who specialize in human and AI ethical, equitable, and sustainable publishing solutions to share their thoughts on the future of peer review.
Our week of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2023 continues with an interview with Shaina Lange and Sue Harris of SSP’s DEIA Committee Outreach Subcommittee, about their work on a soon-to-be-published toolkit to build DEIA in peer review processes and editorial roles
In today’s Peer Review Week guest post, Joe Pold of PLOS interviews the senior editorial team of PLOS Computational Biology about their experience of mandating code sharing for the journal, and its impact on peer review
In today’s post Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf kick off a week of posts to celebrate Peer Review Week 2023 with their thoughts on peer review and the future of publishing.
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.
Could the failure of a journal to visibly correct known errors in a publication, thereby propagating false information, be considered disinformation?
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.
A world famous scientist and university president brought down by a student journalist’s investigative reporting. But the big story is how we fund and reward ethical research.
In this article, Minhaj Rain explores how human intelligence tasks (HITs) and not simply more AI tools could be the way forward as a reliable and scalable solution for maintaining research integrity within the scholarly record.
Policies that formally give peer reviewers the option to officially invite a colleague to collaborate with them improve integrity, transparency, and offers a chance to give fair credit where it is due.
An update on how generative AI has progressed and how it has been applied to research publishing processes since ChatGPT was released, looking at business, application, technology, and ethical aspects of generative AI.
Peer Review Week is an annual global event exploring and celebrating the essential role of peer review. This year’s Peer Review Week theme is “Peer Review and the Future of Publishing.”
The impact of the changes artificial intelligence will cause rests on how creative humans can be at harnessing novel technologies to the greatest benefit. The challenge, then, for publishers, is to ensure they are the creative adopters leading the charge, as opposed to being trampled by better customer experiences created by other technological disruptors.
Morressier’s Sami Benchekroun advocates for a mindset shift from resisting change to embracing adaptation in order to drive a new, more efficient infrastructure for scholarly communications.