home.social

#scholarlypublishing — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #scholarlypublishing, aggregated by home.social.

  1. Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

    HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

    The highlight for me was the finding

    A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

    This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

    #acceleratedAcademy #acceleration #AI #scholarlyPublishing #writing
  2. Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

    HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

    The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

    A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

    This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

    #acceleratedAcademy #acceleration #AI #scholarlyPublishing #writing
  3. Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

    HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

    The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

    A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

    This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

    #acceleratedAcademy #acceleration #AI #scholarlyPublishing #writing
  4. Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

    HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

    The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

    A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

    This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

    #acceleratedAcademy #acceleration #AI #scholarlyPublishing #writing
  5. Using LLMs to help you write papers doesn’t help you get them published

    HT Nik John for sending me this fascinating paper by the editors of Organisational Science. If you’re interested in AI and scholarly publishing, read this paper: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3

    The highlight for me was the finding about editorial outcomes:

    A clear pattern emerges above 30% AI use. Manuscripts crossing this threshold have desk rejection rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than those below it, a 60%–80% relative increase. By the end of the editorial funnel, only 3.2% of high-AI papers (70%+ AI) receive Revise & Resubmit decisions, compared with over three times that rate among low-AI submissions. In other words, editors, likely without recognizing the writing as AI-generated, consistently judged these manuscripts as lower quality and unworthy of reviewers’ time. Interestingly, submissions in the 15%–30% range show a slight increase in success rates, possibly reflecting a more human-first collaboration mode or differences in authors, topics, and other factors that we cannot disentangle.

    This to me feels absolutely key. If this is established across multiple domains it becomes the foundation for a renewed normativity about LLM use. The incentives for individual acceleration are real, the rewards for it are not. Going faster with LLMs doesn’t produce the outcomes you’re actually looking for. It also generates a whole range of externalities that make your working life less pleasant, as well as everyone else’s.

    #acceleratedAcademy #acceleration #AI #scholarlyPublishing #writing
  6. Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/09/09/dartmouth-college-new-guidelines-created-for-publishing-indigenous-data/
  7. Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/09/09/dartmouth-college-new-guidelines-created-for-publishing-indigenous-data/
  8. Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/09/09/dartmouth-college-new-guidelines-created-for-publishing-indigenous-data/
  9. Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/09/09/dartmouth-college-new-guidelines-created-for-publishing-indigenous-data/
  10. Dartmouth College: New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data. “To ensure that Indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are recognized in scientific data and scholarly publishing, a team of Indigenous scholars led by Lydia Jennings, an assistant professor of environmental studies, has established Guidelines for the Governance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data in Scholarly Publishing.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/09/09/dartmouth-college-new-guidelines-created-for-publishing-indigenous-data/
  11. Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

    In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

    #OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

  12. Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

    In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

    #OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

  13. Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

    In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

    #OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

  14. Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

    In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

    #OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

  15. Oggi siamo all'università di Zadar, in Croazia! 🇭🇷🌊

    In occasione della conferenza #pubmet2026 sulla comunicazione nella Scienza Aperta, presenteremo il modello di Milano University Press: una casa editrice accademica Diamond Open Access per una comunicazione scientifica di qualità, al servizio dell'accademia e della società 💎

    #OpenAccess #OpenScience #MilanoUniversityPress #UniversitàDegliStudiDiMilano #EditoriaAccademica #DiamondOpenAccess #Ricerca #ScholarlyPublishing

  16. Carbon Brief: Introducing Project Cosmos: Carbon Brief’s ‘universe’ of climate science. “Carbon Brief’s Project Cosmos is a major collaborative effort to build the world’s largest and most complete database of climate change research. The Cosmos database – which features more than 1.8m individual publications linked by 40m citation relationships – captures the vast body of human […]

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/06/23/introducing-project-cosmos-carbon-briefs-universe-of-climate-science-carbon-brief/
  17. 💕 February 9 – 13 2026 is International Love Data Week #LoveData26, but PKP celebrates #DataSharing all year round.

    Considering the theme “Where’s the Data” in this post, the answer at PKP is clear — the data is everywhere and #interoperability is how we help it flow:

    pkp.sfu.ca/2026/02/12/love-dat

    @crossref @ORCID_Org @DOAJ @ResearchOrgs @OpenAIRE @datacite

    #OpenInfrastructure #FOSS #Metadata #DOIs #PIDs #OpenAccess #ScholComm #ScholarlyPublishing #AcademicChatter

  18. 📢 Join a growing number of academics looking to transform their PhDs into publications.

    Republish Academic Press specialises in supporting scholars looking to make an impact in their industry. Publish factually faster and fairer.

    #AcademicPress #Republish #PhDtoPublication #ScholarlyPublishing #PhDPublishing #Publishing #PhDlife #phdstudent #Academia #Student #University #AcademicCommunity

  19. ❤️ Happy Love Data Week! #Metadata offers context and insights into how scholarly works came to be shared and connected. See what you can learn about scholarship from the #researchnexus this #LoveData25. The Crossref API Learning Hub provides resources to help #researchers access metadata for studying #scholarlypublishing, funding trends, and citation patterns. Explore metadata retrieval and analysis tools here: crossref.org/learning

  20. We're hiring! Join our team as a Director of Programs & Services and help progress #openscience worldwide. If you are a community-minded, analytical, and highly organized individual, then this position is for you!

    Location: RemoteType: Full-time
    Application deadline: 4 October, 2024
    More about the role: bit.ly/3zpnQzX

    #directorofprograms #Werehiring #jobs #scholarlypublishing #hiringnow

  21. Artificial intelligence and digital technology may revolutionize peer review and publishing by addressing limitations and fostering collaboration among scholars worldwide. In European Science Editing, Dikran Toroser, Muhammad Sarwar, Lisa DeTora, Laura Dormer, and Maryam Sayab address how academics, policymakers, and the publishing industry can work together to develop ethical, effective #AItools and #DigitalTech.
    doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e1161

    #PeerReview #ScholarlyPublishing #EuropeanScienceEditing