Chris Rowan @allochthonous@scicomm.xyz
Public

"Generative AI gets an in via systemic overload problems it superficially addresses but doesn't solve", scientific publishing edition:

physics.aps.org/articles/v18/1

A system which incentivises all parties to produce more papers (that generate more citations for previous papers), more quickly —and keeps peer review as an uncompensated side gig — is clearly vulnerable to tools that can quickly produce paper- and review-shaped objects.

The end paragraph is so, so bleak:

"The meaning of academic publishing is to have researchers talk to other researchers, and to enable that...If we just have AI models talking to each other, we're wasting everybody's time."

Physicists Split on AI Use in Peer Review

Whether generative AI is having a positive or a negative impact on peer review is still open to debate, a recent survey has revealed.

physics.aps.org · Physics

Kenneth Fortino @kennypeanuts@hcommons.social
Public

@allochthonousChris Rowan
I do think the goal of academic publishing at its idealized core, is to facilitate research communication, but publishing was hijacked as a form of prestige signaling well before AI. AI just pulls back the curtain. My cautious hope is that AI will break academic publishing so badly that it will have to be rebuild again in the spirit of collegiality and communication, that is at its heart.

0
0
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://hcommons.social/users/kennypeanuts/statuses/115697989053018997 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)