20 Recent Articles about AI & Academic Scholarship

Research integrity is locked into an arms race with agentic AI slop – LSE  

AI can help with research, but humans must remain accountable say university executives – Times Higher Ed 

Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers – Taylor & Francis

AI tool flags plagiarism in 95% of Ph.D. theses submitted this year at India university. – Times of India 

How AI use in scholarly publishing threatens research integrity, lessens trust, and invites misinformation – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Hallucinated References: Five Excuses for Academic Misconduct – Dorethea Baur

Ministers urged not to allow data mining of academic literature – Research Professional News

Librarian finds ‘preposterous number’ of fake references in paper from Springer Nature journal – Retraction Watch 

AI is inventing academic articles – and scholars are citing them – the Observer  

DataSeer develops AI system to track dataset reuse – Research Information  

Journal Submissions Riddled With AI-Created Fake Citations – Inside Higher Ed

Account for AI in the environmental footprint of scientific publishing – Nature  

Will AI Help or Hinder Scientific Publishing? – Undark

Hey ChatGPT, write me a fictional paper: these LLMs are willing to commit academic fraud. – Nature

Scientists are failing to disclose their use of AI despite journal mandates, finds study – Physics World

AI in the editorial workflow: Journals set the rules, institutions set the habits – Scholarly Futures  

AI is turning research into a scientific monoculture - Nature

What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews? – ArXiv

Human versus artificial intelligence: investigating ability of young academics from research and non-research institutions to identify ChatGPT-generated dental research abstracts - Nature 

Fear of stigma blamed as 0.1 per cent of papers declare AI use - Times Higher Ed

LLMs & Retracted Research Papers

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

17 Articles about AI & Academic Scholarship

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

23 Articles about AI & Academic Scholarship

AI bots are overwhelming some journals – C&EN 

AI research summaries ‘exaggerate findings’, study warns – Times Higher Ed

Ethics in Academic Research: Who Is Responsible for Unethical Practices—AI, Scholars, Editors, or Institutions? – PrePrints

A Scanning Error Created a Fake Science Term—Now AI Won’t Let It Die - Gizmodo

GenAI Footprint in Scholarly Publications Reflects Complex Issues of Ac. Integrity Post-Plagiarism (video) - PUPP 

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

AI & Academic Research

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

AI & Academic Research Prediction

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

An Arms Race of Research Misconduct

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

18 Articles about AI & Academic Scholarship

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

16 Articles about AI & Academic Scholarship

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

Suspected Undeclared Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Academic Literature: An Analysis of the Academ-AI Dataset - Arxiv

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

16 Articles about AI & Academic Scholarship

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  

Can AI be used to assess research quality? Chatbots and other tools are increasingly being considered, but people power is still seen as a safer option. – Nature  

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

Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade

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

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

Solo Performance

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