@ALETranslation: "Publishers can improve their approach to AI tool use and policy in the following eight ways:
1) Working together to create a global standard framework
2) Making sure guidelines are live and continuously updated
3) Setting up transparent inclusive governance
4) Encouraging experimentation and learning within individual organizations
5) Creating a risk register for different kinds of tools
6) Differentiating between different bucket categories and substantive versus non-substantive use
7) Defining who is in charge and whether authors can act as content generators, reviewers, or both
8) Considering the ability to monitor and enforce these policies"
"The BMGF is placing more value on early, open, and inclusive research dissemination. The method it is employing is to lead with the preprint, and de-prioritize – but not remove – the scholarly journal."
Gates Policy Refresh: What Would Success Look Like? scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/…
On the Teaching Philosophy fb group, someone offered their students an amnesty if they admitted to using ChatGPT in their assignments, and 23/25 students replied...
What an honour to join @Yu_Shan_Lin and @steinly0 for a lively and interesting discussion about the use of AI in research and publishing. Thanks to @dls4n, @ChiaLungHsieh and @BiophysicalSoc for the kind invitation and the audience for such interesting questions.
Are you curious about the use of AI in scholarly publishing? Come to the panel discussion at #BPS2024 in which @lesleyanson will tell you how we're using it.
Today (Monday) at 2:15pm in room 109AB
Exciting new bioRxiv pilot with @Science_Cast: AI-generated paper summaries at 3 levels (general -> expert) to increase accessibility. Click Automated Services in the dashboard to view these.
It's a pilot experiment, tweaks to come. We value feedback 😊
connect.biorxiv.org/news/202…
@OASPA have been collecting feedback about their 'Equity in Open Access' efforts, and have published a blog post about their next steps:
oaspa.org/increasing-equity-…
"Though it was clearly not the intention of cOAlition S to consolidate market power in the hands of a small number of large commercial organizations, this is an unfortunate result of forcing the market into a rapid state of change rather than allowing amore measured evolution."
R01 application was administratively withdrawn because we cited “Doe et al.” instead of using numerical citations. I understand it was our mistake and appreciate the need to anonymize, but why not check at the time of submission and give us a chance to correct? @NIH @NIHDirector.
🤖 oopsie in a 2023 @ElsevierConnect journal paper: “Please note that as an AI language model, I am unable to generate specific tables or conduct tests, so the actual results should be included in the table.” 🤡 #ChatGPT
ALT https://pubpeer.com/publications/CC7BD83B8979D54C5C11F9E3CC61B9#1
Calling all #ECRs working in #biophysics!
Would you like to gain more experience in #peerreview?
Then join our peer review mentorship programme, and support our mission to reclaim and democratize science publishing at the same time.
Just a little explanatory thread on my latest preprint:
psyarxiv.com/6mbgv/
The focus is on paper mills: the commercial operations that sell authorship/articles/citations at scale, polluting the lilterature with fake or low-quality articles. /1