Did an AI or a Human Write That Paper? New Detector Decides by Examining Its Ideas
Did an AI or a Human Write That Paper? New Detector Decides by Examining Its Ideas
Algorithm looks for clues about a paper's origin that text-based detectors miss.
Send us a link
Algorithm looks for clues about a paper's origin that text-based detectors miss.
This study identifies unusual growth in scientific correspondence after the widespread adoption of generative AI and suggests that AI may be contributing to publication inflation in a format that is citable, lightly regulated and often not peer reviewed.
The latest Pulse Check Poll explored how organizations across the scholarly publishing ecosystem are responding to today’s research integrity challenges.
A study tracking diamond open-access journals has found an increase in titles switching to other publishing models - especially over the past few years.
How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science, masking the human in the process by design. We should consider the structure of the scientific paper, and the need to celebrate the human in an age when AI threatens to overwhelm us.
Emerging challenges are exposing limits to a system that was not designed to withstand. Peer review is at an inflection point.
The role of AI in peer review should be acknowledged in order to ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
Largest illegal database of scientific papers has gaps in recently published literature, but its chatbot can still prove useful—especially for less-timely questions
The preprint movement, once seen as a pragmatic, low-cost, researcher-driven route to openness, now faces its own moment of uncertainty.
An additional layer of quality control could help academic publishers weed out problematic content before it propagates.