We Can Now Track AI-generated Content. It Doesn’t Solve the Real Problem.
Identifying AI content is now embedded in Claude models. It doesn’t solve the problem we have. It also creates others.
Identifying AI content is now embedded in Claude models. It doesn’t solve the problem we have. It also creates others.
New OMB Guidance threatens the important Title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs. Comment period ends today, please add your voice!
Today’s post recaps a lively roundtable conversation with library and information science experts who have been guest bloggers for TSK and active SSP participants.
In 2018 at SSP New Directions, Neil Blair Christensen and Angela Cochran participated in an Oxford debate on the use of AI in Peer Review. Today, they revisit their main points and reflect on where they think we are today and will likely be in another 8 years.
Today’s guest post shares personal reflections about mental health awareness, the importance of boundaries, and routines you can employ to embrace balance.
Only a negligible percentage of authors seem to actually be disclosing their AI use. Here’s why I think that’s the case.
Today’s guest bloggers advocate for marketing strategy using localization, which brings cultural fluency, awareness, and authenticity to our communication with partners around the world.
Each new change in scholarly communication promises to make research fairer, faster, more transparent. Yet, in many cases, researchers, especially from under resourced countries or from countries where English is not the first language, face added pressure to catch up, rather than to move forward.
For decades, EAL researchers have faced systemic disadvantages in publishing. AI writing tools promise relief, yet, they also bring new risks into science.
Nearly three years after ChatGPT’s debut, generative AI continues to reshape scholarly publishing. The sector has moved from experimentation toward integration, with advances in ethical writing tools, AI-driven discovery, summarization, and automated peer review. While workflows are becoming more efficient, the long-term impact on research creation and evaluation remains uncertain.
Tony Alves reflects on the 2025 Peer Review Congress and the rapid evolution of discussions about AI and peer review since 2022.
Wait, Homer Simpson doesn’t say “D’oh!” in different countries?
Guest blogger Hema Thakur shares results of her experiment using AI to improve the accessibility of peer review feedback — her findings may concern you!
A long-running academic controversy — do humans share a universal grammar that stems from the structure and evolution of the human brain?
A millennial linguist dares to speak to a gen-alpha audience in their native tongue.