Tell by Mark Hahnel: "Last week I attended the Future of scientific publishing conference organized by the Royal Society. There were two comments at the conference that really played on my mind.

What does the web look like if all content is bot-produced? What does scientific publishing look like if every paper is AI-generated or at least AI co-authored? This brings me to the other comment that weighed heavy on my mind: "Elsevier fielded 3.5M submissions, published 700K and saw +600K increase in submissions year on year". That's roughly a 17% growth rate, which is double the historical academic publication growth rate of 8-9%.

Based on the current model, the peer review system becomes mathematically impossible remarkably quickly. If we assume each paper needs 2-3 reviews and there are roughly 20 million active researchers globally who could potentially serve as reviewers, we hit a crisis point for submissions quite quickly. So assuming peer review is at breaking point or not far off, perhaps the most obvious near-future change to scientific publishing is the widespread adoption of the "publish then curate" model."

Source https://www.openresearch.wtf/have-we-already-hit-the-peer-review-breaking-point/

Another high-profile case has interested scientists. Read now