AI Will Lead Us to Need More Garbage-subtraction.
Generative AI wants to make information cheap, but will people want to read it? Are we ready for more productive writers?
Kitchen Essentials: An Interview with Adam Hyde of Coko
Following on from yesterday’s introduction to Kitchen Essentials, today Alice Meadows interviews Adam Hyde of Coko for the first post in this new series.
Redefining “Normal” in Academia
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?
Smorgasbord: eLife and Significance vs. Accuracy, The Collapse of the Humanities, and a new NISO Draft on Retractions Standards
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.
The Peer Review Renaissance: An Urgent Call for Transformation
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?
Welcoming a New Chef in the Kitchen, Roohi Ghosh
Today, Roohi Ghosh officially joins us as a regular contributor in The Scholarly Kitchen.
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.
Building a Voluntary Contribution Transaction System
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.
The American Chemical Society Offers a New Twist on the Article Processing Charge: An Interview with Sarah Tegen
The American Chemical Society is offering a new approach to funding open-access articles; Rick Anderson interviews Sarah Tegen about it.
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.
Embedding DEIA in Peer Review Processes: An Interview with SSP’s DEIA Outreach Subcommittee about their Upcoming Toolkit
Our week of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2023 continues with an interview with Shaina Lange and Sue Harris of SSP’s DEIA Committee Outreach Subcommittee, about their work on a soon-to-be-published toolkit to build DEIA in peer review processes and editorial roles
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.