A selection of questions and answers from Copyright Clearance Center’s response to the United States Copyright Office “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright” request for comment.
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?
A report of the Chef’s panel on AI, Open content, and research integrity during the Frankfurt Book Fair.
Robert Harington provides a template for scholarly societies wondering how to grapple with the overwhelming and omnipresent prospect of an AI future.
In 2023, AI has been back in the news in a big way. Large Language Models and ChatGPT threatened our’s and many other industries with huge disruption. As with so many threatened techno-shocks, a large degree of this one was hype, but what will happen after the hype fades. What, if anything, will be the lasting legacy of ChatGPT?
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.
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.
How machines learn, as demonstrated by a pile of matchboxes playing tic-tac-toe.
The challenges offered by artificial intelligence require a different approach than that seen for plagiarism detection.
Was a recent Scholarly Kitchen piece analyzing the capabilities of ChatGPT a fair test? What happens if you run a similar test with an improved prompt on LLMs that are internet connected and up to date?
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.
To identify both benefits and risks of generative AI for our industry, we tested ChatGPT and Google Bard for authoring, for submission and reviews, for publishing, and for discovery and dissemination.
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.