Related papers: When Excellence Stops Producing Knowledge: A Pract…
It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is no risk…
The software engineering research community faces a systemic crisis: peer review is failing under growing submissions, misaligned incentives, and reviewer fatigue. Community surveys reveal that researchers perceive the process as "broken."…
Scholarly journals rely on peer review to identify the science most worthy of publication. Yet finding willing and qualified reviewers to evaluate manuscripts has become an increasingly challenging task, possibly even threatening the…
The decline of single authorship in peer-reviewed journals within the current collaboration-oriented knowledge production framework has prompted deeper reflection on the shifting power structures in academic systems. This paper aims to…
The software engineering research community is productive, yet it faces a constellation of challenges: swamped review processes, metric-driven incentives, distorted publication practices, and increasing pressures from AI, scale, and…
Peer review in software engineering research operates under tight time constraints, while generative AI has substantially reduced the human effort required to produce polished research narratives. Reviewer attention is often spent on…
Autonomous AI systems can now generate complete economics research papers, but they substantially underperform human-authored publications in head-to-head comparisons. This paper decomposes the quality gap into two independent components:…
Artificial Intelligence (AI), and in particular generative models, are transformative tools for knowledge work. They problematise notions of creativity, originality, plagiarism, the attribution of credit, and copyright ownership. Critics of…
The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications,…
Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale. Exponential growth in manuscript submissions to premier ML venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR is outpacing the finite…
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to reshape academic publishing by enabling the rapid production of submission-ready manuscripts. While such tools promise to enhance productivity, they also raise concerns about overwhelming…
Scientific research funding is allocated largely through a system of soliciting and ranking competitive grant proposals. In these competitions, the proposals themselves are not the deliverables that the funder seeks, but instead are used by…
Scientific progress has long been understood as recombinant, with breakthroughs arising when existing ideas are joined in new ways. Empirical work in this tradition has focused on the inputs to discovery, asking whether a paper draws…
This study empirically investigates the impact of AI-augmented peer review systems on scientific productivity using panel data from OECD countries. While prior research has highlighted inefficiencies in traditional peer review, little…
One of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to…
This contribution examines the current controversy over research productivity. There are two sides in this controversy. Using extensive data from several industries and areas of research, one side argues that research productivity is…
The emergent phenomena of large foundation models have revolutionized natural language processing. However, evaluating these models presents significant challenges due to their size, capabilities, and deployment across diverse applications.…
The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge…
US funding agencies alone distribute a yearly total of roughly $65B dollars largely through the process of proposal peer review: scientists compete for project funding by submitting grant proposals which are evaluated by selected panels of…
Competitive grant funding is associated with high costs and a potential bias to favor conservative research. This comment proposes integrating editorial preregistration, in the form of registered reports, into grant peer review processes as…