There is a secret to radically improving your productivity – it’s called a Weekly Review. Follow these 5 steps to start every week with clarity.
Definition of REVIEW
an act or process of carefully looking at or examining the quality, condition, etc., of something or someone; revision… See the full definition
Introducing Routines: Research that keeps working - Elicit
Tell the Elicit Research Agent what to keep current. Routines find new evidence, update your work, and report back for your review.
The psychological trick you can learn in 10 minutes that will be useful for the rest of your life
Stop feeling overwhelmed.
Readwise: Get the most out of what you read
Easily revisit and learn from your highlights and annotations.
PREreview: Open preprint reviews. For all researchers.
Satisfaction and progress in open-ended work
When we’re in execution mode, we swim in signs of our progress. A day’s work stands crisply in some endless checklist: four problems solved; three features added; check and check. Am I on track? Did I have a good day? Typical productivity advice applies: set goals; track progress; triage tasks. A checklist makes the day’s grade clear enough.
Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.
AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot
Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.
Opinion | 5-Hour Workdays? 4-Day Workweeks? Yes, Please (Published 2019)
Sick of round-the-clock work emails and Slack messages? Here’s some hope.
every week i read alex’s update, and find i have the lived experience of almost every single thing in it i highly recommend his weekly reflections, gem after gem after gem, always timely and on-point @komorama.bsky.social i don’t know how you are able to do this but i am very thankful that you do!
Alex Komoroske
I just published my weekly reflections: docs.google.com/document/d/1xRiCqpy3LMAgEsHdX… 10x more productive at 2x the stress. Lowering the Coasian The bring your own blowtorch phase. Claudeish. Two danger thresholds: cars vs motorcycles. The fruitcake model of generative UX. The leverage of the right IR.
We have some news you can use on the blog this fine Monday! Ozone, our mod tool, is adding a new *report-based* moderation workflow, which enables higher-context moderating, better collaboration, auditing, and more! Check it: atproto.com/blog/report-based-moderation
Report-Based Moderation in Ozone - AT Protocol
atproto.com
