Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without...

Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without...

Artificial intelligence tools are accelerating manuscript production far faster than peer review capacity can expand. Applying the theory of constraints from manufacturing science, we formalize...

Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without Proportional Verification Investment Degrades Scientific Knowledge

Artificial intelligence tools are accelerating manuscript production far faster than peer review capacity can expand. Applying the theory of constraints from manufacturing science, we formalize this asymmetry through a minimal two-variable ordinary differential equation model coupling review queue evolution and verification quality degradation via an endogenous, queue-pressure-driven review AI adoption mechanism. The causal chain is: writing AI adoption increases submissions, growing the review queue, which drives reviewer AI adoption under pressure, degrading verification quality and reducing net knowledge output. Under empirically informed parameters (writing acceleration γ = 2.0, review acceleration δ = 0.5), the model predicts a deceptive honeymoon where knowledge output peaks at 1.10K0 (circa 2026), followed by paradox onset at t = 6 years (2028) and long-term degradation to 0.68K0 (32% loss), approaching a steady state of 0.60K0 (40% loss). The critical condition for net benefit is δ > γ; the current operating point lies deep in the paradox regime. Empirical validation against NeurIPS, ICLR, arXiv, and bioRxiv submission data shows qualitative consistency with observed post-ChatGPT acceleration patterns. Policy analysis reveals that only combined interventions such as review infrastructure investment paired with institutional quality standards can restore positive knowledge production.

Protocolized Writing Workshop

Your chance to race to the frontier of modern AI-forward writing and publishing

Introducing Prism

Accelerating science writing and collaboration with AI.

Accelerating Science with Human+AI Review

This issue of NEJM AI features the first two articles published through our accelerated human+AI review process. In this editorial, we describe the invitation-only “Fast Track” process used to revi...

From bench to bot: Why AI-powered writing may not deliver on its promise

Efficiency isn’t everything. The cognitive work of struggling with prose may be a crucial part of what drives scientific progress.

AI’s Growing Role as Scientific Peer Reviewer | Stanford HAI

Stanford computer scientist James Zou is exploring how AI can accelerate scientific research and peer review. His finding: AI excels at spotting gaps, but judgment calls still need humans.

Could AI slow science?

Confronting the production-progress paradox

More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review | Organization Science

As the AI Task Force for Organization Science, we provide an early account of artificial intelligence’s (AI) impact on both submissions and reviews at a major academic journal. Submission volume ha...

Writing With AI Is Harder Than You Think

It takes rigor, judgment, and willingness to be told your work isn't good enough.

How do authors want to use AI for review?

A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers.

Project Rachel: Can an AI Become a Scholarly Author?

This paper documents Project Rachel, an action research study that created and tracked a complete AI academic identity named Rachel So. Through careful publication of AI-generated research papers, we investigate how the scholarly ecosystem responds to AI authorship. Rachel So published 10+ papers between March and October 2025, was cited, and received a peer review invitation. We discuss the implications of AI authorship on publishers, researchers, and the scientific system at large. This work contributes empirical action research data to the necessary debate about the future of scholarly communication with super human, hyper capable AI systems.