We are expecting the US Government’s AI Action Plan to be issued over the summer. In the meantime, we may glean some of the administration’s views by looking at recently issued information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Explaining research to a rubber duck might sound odd, but it could be the secret to clearer thinking and better communication. This post explores how “rubber ducking” — a technique borrowed from programming — can help researchers explain complex ideas with more clarity, creativity, and confidence.
Reverse delegation, a cycle where tasks flow back to the leader of an organization or team, can be difficult to overcome, particularly in academia.
While Open Science frameworks aim for global inclusivity, their implementation often overlooks the complex, everyday realities of research communities across Asia and the Arab world.
Usage data experiences are dominated by tabular reports from complex systems; we need new tools to illuminate the stories within the data.
Science is built on a foundation of rigor and credibility. Preprints are adding to the crumbling of that foundation, which is already under attack by anti-science political agendas.
These are not normal times. This is a time where we are all navigating new ways of being, new ways of shifting our horizons on an hour-by-hour and day-to-day basis. It’s a time to give grace to one another.
It is time for OA proponents to engage in public debate with academic associations, universities and national funding agencies, because the widespread use of academic content in AI models poses significant risks for the research ecosystem.
An interview with Aaron Wood, discussing the APA’s comprehensive approach to AI.
We asked the Program Committee Chairs what they’re looking forward to at this year’s SSP Annual Meeting.
Today, Alice Meadows shares some learnings from MoreBrains Cooperative’s recent cost-benefit analysis of persistent identifiers, conducted on behalf of the Czech National Library of Technology (NTK).
I think human-dependent peer review has lost its human element, thus its relevance, so what we can do to install a new system by abandoning the present one?
How should we think about the problems of misinformation and disinformation in the context of scholarly publishing, research, and libraries?
How do the problems of misinformation and disinformation intersect with the concerns of scholarly communication?
In chaotic times, we must look for reliable things, like the joy of dropping stuff off a tall building…