Ideas that challenge / comfort / inspire
Stephen Goforth
Large language models should not be used to weed out retracted literature, a study of 21 chatbots concludes. Not only were the chatbots unreliable at correctly identifying retracted papers, they spit out different results when given the same prompts. On average, the 21 chatbots correctly identified fewer than half of the retracted papers. More at Retraction Watch
Evaluating AI guidelines in leading family medicine journals: a cross-sectional study – BMC
Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers? – arXiv
University of Hong Kong probes non-existent AI-generated references in paper; prof. says content not fabricated – Hong Kong Free Press
An Early Investigation Into In-Paper Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for AI Reviewers - arXiv
AI ‘Godfather’ hits record 1 million citations on Google Scholar - Semafor
Large language models in peer review: challenges and opportunities – Springer
arXiv Changes Rules After Getting Spammed With AI-Generated 'Research' Papers – 404 Media
Letters to scientific journals surge as ‘prolific debutante’ authors likely use AI – Science.org
From Language Barrier to AI Bias: The Non-Native Speaker’s Dilemma in Scientific Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen
Will AI + OA be OK? - Cabells
Why AI transparency is not enough - Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University
AI tools combat paper mill fraud in scientific publishing as peer review system struggles – Chemistry World
AI-powered fraud: Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research - South China Morning Post
AI bots wrote and reviewed all papers at this conference – Nature
Low-quality papers are flooding the cancer literature — can this AI tool help to catch them? – Nature
The chemistry community should ban drawing chemical structures with generative AI, chemists warn – Chemistry World
How ChatGPT-5 redefines scientific reproducibility.” – Elephant in the Lab
AAAI Launches AI-Powered Peer Review Assessment System - Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
Research commissioner appears to cite discredited study in AI speech – Science Business
AI in peer review: where to draw the line? – Research Professional News
MIT takes down article on an AI platform for churches -MIT Technology Review
Journal defends work with fake AI citations after Hong Kong university launches probe - South China Morning Post
Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? (a podcast) – The Guardian
AI-generated ‘participants’ can lead social science experiments astray, study finds – Science
AI tools could reduce the appeal of predatory journals – Nature
Fake microscopy images generated by AI are indistinguishable from the real thing. – Chemistry World
The Machines Finding Life That Humans Can’t See – The Atlantic
Can researchers stop AI making up citations? - Nature
AI models are using material from retracted scientific papers – MIT Tech Review
AI tool detects LLM-generated text in research papers and peer reviews – Nature
Prestige over merit: An adapted audit of LLM bias in peer review – Cornell University arXiv
Far more authors use AI to write science papers than admit it, publisher reports – Science
What do researchers acknowledge ChatGPT for in their papers? – London School of Economics
The rising danger of AI-generated images in nanomaterials science and what we can do about it – Nature
ChatGPT Fails to Flag Retracted and Problematic Articles – The Scientist
Beyond ‘we used ChatGPT’: a new way to declare AI in research – Research Professional News
Study looks at how biomedical journal editors-in-chief feel about AI use in their journals. – Springer
AI-generated medical data can sidestep usual ethics review, universities say – Nature
AI could be used for a Research Excellence Framework, says Royal Society president – Research Professional News
Can Generative AI Restore Hope or Result in a Decline in the Quest for Academic Integrity – Sage
When AI rejects your grant proposal: algorithms are helping to make funding decisions - Nature
We risk a deluge of AI-written ‘science’ pushing corporate interests – here’s what to do about it – The Conversation
Far more authors use AI to write science papers than admit it, publisher reports – Science
Can generative AI replace humans in qualitative research studies? - Techxplore
The recent reduction in spelling error rates in academic papers could be due to an increased use of LLMs – OSF Preprints
AI linked to explosion of low-quality biomedical research papers - Nature
Flood of AI-assisted research ‘weakening quality of science'” – Times Higher Ed
Shoddy study designs and false findings using a large public health dataset portend future risk of exploitation by AI and paper mills – PLOS Biology
Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split - Nature
MIT Says It No Longer Stands Behind Student’s AI Research Paper – Wall Street Journal
Meta releases new data set, AI model aimed at speeding up scientific research – Semafor
Experiment using AI-generated posts on Reddit draws fire for ethics concerns – Retraction Watch
AI-Reddit study leader gets warning as ethics committee moves to ‘stricter review process’ – Retraction Watch
Why misuse of generative AI is worse than plagiarism – Springer
Science sleuths flag hundreds of papers that use AI without disclosing it - Nature
Google engineer withdraws preprint after getting called out for using AI – Retraction Watch
Scientific Data Fabrication and AI—Pandora’s Box – JAMA Network
AI summary ‘trashed author’s work’ and took weeks to be corrected – Times Higher Ed
AI language models increasingly shape economics research writing, study finds – Phys.org
Artificial intelligence in vaccine research and development: an umbrella review – Frontiers
AI bots are overwhelming some journals – C&EN
AI research summaries ‘exaggerate findings’, study warns – Times Higher Ed
A Scanning Error Created a Fake Science Term—Now AI Won’t Let It Die - Gizmodo
AI is transforming peer review — and many scientists are worried – Nature
A Shortcut or a Level Up? Harvard Faculty Debate Generative AI in Academia – The Crimson
Publishers Embrace AI as Research Integrity Tool – Inside Higher Ed
AI tools are spotting errors in research papers: inside a growing movement – Nature
AI search summaries cannibalise academic publishers’ web traffic – Times Higher Ed
An academic paper written by AI passed peer review — but it’s a bit more nuanced than that – Tech Crunch
Trying to Write an Academic Paper with LLM Assistance – Scholarly Kitchen
Academic publishers warn against AI copyright plans - Research Professional News – Research Professional News
AI detectors are poor western blot classifiers: a study of accuracy and predictive values – PeerJ
Will AI jeopardize science photography? – Nature
Can AI Solve the Peer Review Crisis? - IZA Institute of Labor Economics
Publishers need to provide guidelines on use of AI in research, says Wiley – Chemistry World
ChatGPT to help peer review scientific studies in UK Government trial – Telegraph
Generative artificial intelligence usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals – BMC Medicine
Retractions Increase 10-Fold in 20 Years - and Now AI is Involved – AAPS News
A viral video reveals how an AI-generated mistake led to nearly two dozen flawed research papers – Economic Times
Is AI the new research scientist? Not so, according to a human-led study. – University of Florida
The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Writing and Publishing Papers – Research Gate
Although today’s AI products are cast in the role of assistants, AI might eventually come to dominate the peer-review process, with the human reviewer’s role reduced or cut out altogether. Some enthusiasts see the automation of peer review as an inevitability — but many researchers, as well as journal publishers, view it as a disaster. -Nature
A recent survey by Wiley found that while the majority of researchers believe AI skills will be critical within two years, more than 60 percent said lack of guidelines and training keep them from using it in their work. -Inside Higher Ed
Retractions are rising in medical research literature, even as more eyes examine peer-reviewed papers for accuracy. AI is powering an arms race in the world of research misconduct, making it easier for scientific fraud to occur, and for editors to identify and root out. In 2002, 1 in 5,000 papers were retracted, Oransky said. In 2023 retractions increased to 1 in 500 papers. -AAPS news magazine
What are the best AI tools for research? Nature’s guide - Nature
Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review: Insights from Journal Reviewers – Springer
OpenAI unveils a new ChatGPT agent for ‘deep research’ – TechCrunch
AI-Generated Junk Science Is a Big Problem on Google Scholar, Research Suggests – Gizmodo
What happens when you let ChatGPT assess impact case studies? – London School of Economics
Generative AI in the research process – A survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions – Science Direct
Springer Nature offers to sell authors “AI Summaries of Their Own Work” – Futurism
Teens Are Doing AI Research Now. Is That a Good Thing? - Chronicle of Higher Ed
How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals? – Wiley
Elsevier denies AI use in response to evolution journal board resignations – Retraction Watch
Springer Nature reveals AI-driven tool to 'automate some editorial quality checks' – The Bookseller
Nvidia unveils $3,000 desktop AI computer for home researchers - ArsTechnica
Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe? - Elsevier
Detecting Research Misconduct in the Age of Artificial Intelligence – The Scientist
Can AI-generated podcasts boost science engagement? – Nature
AI-Authored Abstracts ‘More Authentic’ Than Human-Written Ones – Inside Higher Ed
Scholars Are Supposed to Say When They Use AI. Do They? - Chronicle of Higher Ed
Will ChatGPT Get Tenure? - Leiden Vladtrice
Publishers are selling papers to train AIs — and making millions of dollars – Nature
Can AI fix the peer review bottleneck? Top journals weigh in - News-Medical.Net
Can Google Scholar survive the AI revolution? - Nature
Rethinking Reviewer Fatigue AI’s place in a broader discussion - EON
Writing assistant, workhorse, or accelerator? How academics are using GenAI – London School of Economics
Can AI review the scientific literature — and figure out what it all means? – Nature
The great AI witch hunt: Reviewers’ perception and (Mis)conception of generative AI in research writing – Science Direct
Can AI be used to assess research quality? – Nature
Scholarly Publishing World Slow to Embrace Generative AI – Inside Higher Education
National Academies President on How to Use Generative AI Responsibly in Scientific Research – JAMA
Study of ChatGPT citations makes dismal reading for publishers – Tech Crunch
Experts fail to reliably detect AI-generated histological data – Nature
AI-authored abstracts ‘more authentic’ than human-written ones – Times Higher Ed
AI’s computing gap: academics lack access to powerful chips needed for research – Nature
AI-generated survey responses could make research less accurate – and a lot less interesting – Stanford
Google's new AI tool transforms dense research papers into accessible conversations - try it free - ZDnet
Optimizing Large-Scale AI Model Pre-Training for Academic Research: A Resource-Efficient Approach – MarTech Post
A group of experienced editorial board members struggled to distinguish human versus AI authorship – AHA Journals
AI can carry out qualitative research at unprecedented scale – London School of Economics
Is AI the Answer to Peer Review Problems, or the Problem Itself? – Scholarly Kitchen
Is Detecting genAI in Scholarly Research Beside the Point? – Clear Skies Adam
Unleashing the power of AI in science-key considerations for materials data preparation – Nature
UK Research and Innovation tells reviewers they must not use generative AI – Research Professional News
In which fields can ChatGPT detect journal article quality – ARXIV
Overcoming Skepticism Through Experimentation: The Role of AI in Transforming Peer Review – Scholarly Kitchen
If generative AI accelerates science, peer review needs to catch up - London School of Economics
Some Thoughts on the Promise and Pitfalls of Innovation and Technology in Peer Review - Scholarly Kitchen
Is AI the Answer to Peer Review Problems, or the Problem Itself? - Scholarly Kitchen
Do AI models produce more original ideas than researchers? – Nature
How Gen AI Could Transform Scholarly Publishing: Themes and Reflections from Interviews with Industry Leaders - Scholarly Kitchen
Do AI models produce more original ideas than researchers? - Nature
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: A Comprehensive SWOT Analysis of AI and Human Expertise in Peer Review – Scholarly Kitchen
How Are AI Chatbots Changing Scientific Publishing? – Science Friday
New academic AI guidelines aim to curb research misconduct – Global Times
Generative AI-assisted Peer Review in Medical Publications: Opportunities Or Trap – JRIM Publications
GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: preempting evidence manipulation – Harvard
AI Editing: Are We There Yet? - Science Editor – Science Editor
AI tool claims 94% accuracy in telling apart fake from real research papers – Deccan Herald
AI firms must play fair when they use academic data in training – Nature
AI Scientists Have a Problem: AI Bots Are Reviewing Their Work ChatGPT – Chronicle of Higher Ed
A list of more than 500 papers with clear evidence of generative AI use - Academ-AI
Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing – Taylor & Francis Online
Is ChatGPT a Reliable Ghostwriter? – The Journal of Nuclear Medicine
A new ‘AI scientist’ can write science papers without any human input. Here’s why that’s a problem – The Conversation
Could science be fully automated? A team of machine-learning researchers has now tried. - Nature
How AI tools help students—and their professors—in academic research – Fast Company
AI-Generated Junk Science Research a Growing Problem, Experts Say – PYMNTS
Did a criminal Russian academic paper mill use AI to plagiarize a BYU professor and his student? – Deseret News
The advent of human-assisted peer review by AI – Nature
The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing – Arxiv
A Rapid Investigation of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content Footprints in Scholarly Publications – UTP Journals
Fake science in fraudulent papers is on the rise - The Week
Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures – Wall Street Journal
Researchers warned against using AI to peer review academic papers – Semafor
Guidelines for academics aim to lessen ethical pitfalls in generative-AI use – Nature
Artificial intelligence content detection in ASCO scientific abstracts from 2021 to 2023 - Journal of Clinical Oncology
Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct – Sage
Academic Writers on AI: An Oxford University Press Study – Publishing Perspectives
Report: Most researchers use AI tools despite distrusting it – Inside Higher Ed
With hallucinations waning, AI is diving deeper into scientific research – The Next Web
Fake Scientific Studies Are a Problem That’s Getting Harder to Solve – Bloomberg
Wiley shuts 19 scholarly journals amid AI paper mill problems – The Register
AI chatbots have thoroughly infiltrated scientific publishing. One percent of scientific articles published in 2023 showed signs of generative AI’s potential involvement, according to a recent analysis - Scientific American
The journey from research data generation to manuscript publication presents many opportunities where AI could, hypothetically, be used – for better or for worse. - Technology Network
Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? There are telltale words that hint at AI use. A study of review reports identifies dozens of adjectives that could indicate text written with the help of chatbots. - Nature
Should researchers use AI to write papers? This group aims to release a set of guidelines by August, which will be updated every year - Science.org
Generative AI firms should stop ripping off publishers and instead work with them to enrich scholarship, says Oxford University Press’ David Clark. - Times Higher Ed
Here are three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing. Generative AI can be a valuable aid in writing, editing and peer review – if you use it responsibly - Nature
New detection tools powered by AI have lifted the lid on what some are calling an epidemic of fraud in medical research and publishing. Last year, the number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. - DW News (video)
Estimating the prevalence of ChatGPT "contamination” in the scholarly literature: It is estimated that at least 60,000 papers (slightly over 1% of all articles) were LLM-assisted - ArXiiv
AI-Generated Texts from LLM has infiltrated the realm of scientific writing? We confirmed and quantified the widespread influence of AI-generated texts in scientific publications across many scientific domains - BioRxiv
Georgetown found that American scholarly institutions and companies are the biggest contributors to AI safety research, but it pales in comparison to the amount of overall studies into AI, raising questions about public and private sector priorities. - Semafor
Google Books is indexing low quality, AI-generated books that will turn up in search results, and could possibly impact Google Ngram viewer, an important tool used by researchers to track language use throughout history. - 404Media
The Association of Research Libraries announced a set of seven guiding principles for university librarians to follow in light of rising generative AI use. - Inside Higher Ed
Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles? – Nature
The Latest “Crisis” — Is the Research Literature Overrun with ChatGPT- and LLM-generated Articles? – Scholarly Kitchen
Peer Review and Scientific Publishing Are Faltering – Medscape
Silicon Valley is pricing academics out of AI research - The Washington Post
Generative artificial intelligence and scientific publishing: urgent questions, difficult answers – The Lancet
Is ChatGPT making scientists hyper-productive? The highs and lows of using AI – Nature
Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View – Springer
AI-generated images and video are here: how could they shape research? – Nature
Fake academic papers are on the rise: why they’re a danger and how to stop them – The Conversation
Paul M. Sutter Thinks We’re Doing Science (and Journalism) Wrong – Undark
More published research should be debunked and retracted, watchdogs say – Wisconsin Public Radio
How Science Sleuths Track Down Bad Research – Wall Street Journal
Could AI Disrupt Peer Review? Publishers’ policies lag technological advances - Spectrum
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles - Springer
‘Obviously ChatGPT’ — how reviewers accused me of scientific fraud - Nature
AI could accelerate scientific fraud as well as progress - Economist
Researchers plan to release guidelines for the use of AI in publishing - Chemical & Engineering News
ChatGPT use shows that the grant-application system is broken - Nature
Detecting fraud in scientific publications: the perils and promise of AI - Science Pod
The Science family of journals is adopting the use of Proofig, an artificial intelligence (AI)–powered image-analysis tool- Science Magazine
Can ChatGPT and Other AI Bots Serve as Peer Reviewers? - ACS Publishing
AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals - Cornell University
As scientists face a flood of papers, AI developers aim to help New tools show promise, but technical and legal barriers may hinder widespread use - Science Magazine
Is AI leading to a reproducibility crisis in science? – Nature
Affiliation Bias in Peer Review of Abstracts by a Large Language Mode - JAMA
AI copilots and robo-labs turbocharge research - Axios
Editing companies are stealing unpublished research to train their AI - Times Higher Ed
How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images - Nature
Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality? - Cornell University
The JSTOR Daily Sleuth - Jstor
AI beats human sleuth at finding problematic images in research papers – Nature
Signs of undeclared ChatGPT use in papers mounting - Retraction Watch
Spitting out the AI Gobbledegook sandwich: a suggestion for publishers - Dorothy V. M. Bishop blog
AI destroys principles of authorship. A scary case from educational technology publishing. - Marco Kalz blog
Artificial Intelligence–Generated Research in the Literature: Is It Real or Is It Fraud? - Mary Ann Liebert Publishers
ChatGPT used in peer reviews of Australian Research Council grant applications – itnews
As scientists explore AI-written text, journals hammer out policies – Science.org
Use of AI Is Seeping Into Academic Journals—and It’s Proving Difficult to Detect – Wired
Draft law in China sets out penalties for AI-aided academic writing – University World News
In an attempt to test just how rigorous scientific research is, some researchers have undertaken the task of replicating research that’s been published in a whole range of fields. And as more and more of those attempted replications have come back, the results have been striking — it is not uncommon to find that many, many published studies cannot be replicated.
A decade of talking about the replication crisis hasn’t translated into a scientific process that’s much less vulnerable to it. Bad science is still frequently published, including in top journals.
Kelsey Piper writing in Vox
Verification bias refers to a stubborn resistance to accepting the null hypothesis – the assumption that there is no inherent relationship between the variables being studied. The null hypothesis is the default position in experiments. This is what the researcher is attempting to eliminate through experimental investigation. For example, continuing to repeat an experiment until it “works” as desired, or excluding inconvenient cases or results may make the hypothesis immune to the facts. Verification bias amounts to the repression of negative results.
Augustine Brannigan, The Use and Misuse of the Experimental Method in Social Psychology
A mountain of studies has shown that face-to-face brainstorming and teamwork often lead to inferior decisionmaking. That’s because social dynamics lead groups astray; they coalesce around the loudest extrovert’s most confidently asserted idea, no matter how daft it might be.
What works better? “Virtual” collaboration—with team members cogitating on solutions alone, in private, before getting together to talk them over. As Susan Cain (who wrote Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking) discovered, researchers have found that groups working in this fashion generate better ideas and solve problems more adroitly. To really get the best out of people, have them work alone first, then network later.
Sounds like the way people collaborate on the Internet, doesn’t it? With texting, chat, status updates, comment threads, and email, you hash over ideas and thoughts with a pause between each utterance, giving crucial time for reflection. Plus, you can do so in private.
(The) overall the irony here is pretty gorgeous. It suggests we’ve been thinking about the social web the wrong way. We generally assume that it has unleashed an unruly explosion of disclosure, a constant high school of blather. But what it has really done is made our culture more introverted—and productively so. Now if we could just get some doors on those cubicles.
Clive Thompson writing in Wired Magazine
Becoming is a service of Goforth Solutions, LLC / Copyright ©2026 All Rights Reserved