AI and Scholarly Societies
Robert Harington provides a template for scholarly societies wondering how to grapple with the overwhelming and omnipresent prospect of an AI future.
GPT, Large Language Models, and the Trough of Disillusionment
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?
Measuring Metadata Impacts on Discoverability: A Conversation at the 2023 AUPresses Meeting
A panel attending the 2023 AUPresses Meeting hosted a conversation about optimizing books metadata and measuring its impact on search experiences in the mainstream web.
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.
Guest Post — Striking a Balance: Humans and Machines in the Future of Peer Review and Publishing
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.
How Does Mandated Code-sharing Change Peer Review? An Interview with PLOS Computational Biology
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
Reflections on Peer Review and the Humane Future of Publishing
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.
Ask the Chefs: What is the Single Most Pressing Issue for 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.
Publishers, Don’t Use AI Detection Tools!
The challenges offered by artificial intelligence require a different approach than that seen for plagiarism detection.
Inequities in Grant Funding Start Early: How Can We Address Them?
Inequities are rife in the research process, starting with the pre-award process. Based on feedback and input from researchers, research managers, and others a new report looks at the challenges and makes recommendations for how funders and institutions can address them.
Guest Post – Was ChatGPT Set Up to Fail? Choosing the Right Tools and the Right Prompts is Essential for LLM Discovery
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?
Guest Post — The Paradox of Hyperspecialization and Interdisciplinary Research
How does the shift to interdisciplinary research reshape the very foundation of how knowledge is generated and applied across various fields and what do the different stakeholders in academia need to do to balance the depth of specialized knowledge with the breadth of interdisciplinary understanding?
Critical Archives
Studying the way we’ve studied the past is mutual work. Archivists and librarians, and scholars using their collections, have each been producing critical archives scholarship that too often remains within disciplinary and professional siloes.
AI Beyond the Publishing Workflow
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.
Generative AI, ChatGPT, and Google Bard: Evaluating the Impact and Opportunities for Scholarly Publishing
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.