Fortune Brainstorm AI Conference: Themes and Ideas
Themes and ideas from the Fortune Brainstorm AI. “People won’t lose their jobs to AI; they’ll lose their jobs to people that are using AI.”
Themes and ideas from the Fortune Brainstorm AI. “People won’t lose their jobs to AI; they’ll lose their jobs to people that are using AI.”
Introducing the AI in Scholarly Publishing Community of Interest (CoIN), the SSP’s latest offering to all its members to explore and engage in all matters AI as they relate to scholarly publishing.
Academia has developed an amazing tree of knowledge which is arguably the most important data for Large Language Models to be trained on. Where does the scholarly communication community fit in?
We asked the Chefs to weigh in with their thoughts on the new “Towards Responsible Publishing” manifesto from cOAlition S.
Nicko Goncharoff presents an overview of the STM/CUJS China Symposium and offers key takeaways, including China’s increasing concern over APCs and Gold OA costs, divergent views on research integrity, and better routes to cooperation.
Separately, both open research and AI are considered disrupters, causes of disorder in the normal continuance of scholarly publishing. But approaching them in a synchronized way can offer more productivity gains and efficiencies than taking them on individually.
Generative AI wants to make information cheap, but will people want to read it? Are we ready for more productive writers?
We all know the journals market has rapidly consolidated over recent years. But where’s the data? I set out to find some numbers to put behind the common sense.
The traditional “normal” in academia often lacks the richness and dynamism required for robust intellectual discourse and innovation. How can we cultivate a “personalized normal” that celebrates the uniqueness of researchers and empowers them to communicate their discoveries innovatively?
Accountability is at the center of leadership. We must hold people, policies and structures to account and if we are struggling with tackling the hard questions, are we really doing the work?
A mixed bag post from us — can you separate out the significance of research results from their validity? What will the collapse of the Humanities mean for scholarly publishing writ large? And a new draft set of recommended practices for communicating retractions, removals, and expressions of concern.
Are there enough reviewers though to meet demand and is the peer review process efficient enough to handle the sheer volume of papers being published? How can a combination of human expertise and AI make the peer review process more efficient?
Robert Harington provides a template for scholarly societies wondering how to grapple with the overwhelming and omnipresent prospect of an AI future.
Here I propose a framework for a Voluntary Contribution Transaction system to recognize the voluntary contributions in the scholarly workflow and to give tangible benefits to the volunteers.
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.