Guest Post — Love, Death & Robots: Scholarly Edition - The Scholarly Kitchen

Guest Post — Scholarly AI Search Shortcomings and the Need for Better Metadata - The Scholarly Kitchen

AI scholarly search tools often miss important literature due to incomplete metadata. Better full-text-derived metadata could significantly improve discovery.

AI Use in The Scholarly Kitchen - The Scholarly Kitchen

Some thoughts on the reader response the Scholarly Kitchen has seen regarding AI use by authors, a recent Nature News article on the efficacy of AI detection tools, and why it's important to keep experimenting to figure out what's ethically acceptable.

Guest Post - The Perils of Using Generative AI to Perform Research Tasks: Editors’ and Publishers’ Viewpoints - The Scholarly Kitchen

Today's guest post offers a review of a panel of publishers and editors discussing the pros and cons of using Generative AI, along with ethical and policy implications.

Building Scholar-Ready AI: A Conversation with Todd Toler - The Scholarly Kitchen

A conversation on AI retrieval, the provenance problem, and the shared infrastructure scholarly publishing needs.

Guest Post — Now is the Time for AI in Peer Review, and Publishing Policies Need to Recognize This - The Scholarly Kitchen

Today's post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.

Guest Post — Is Growth Always Good News? 2026 Article Submission Surges - The Scholarly Kitchen

ScholarOne saw a submission surge in the first quarter of 2026 — evidence that AI is increasing the strain on peer review's social contract with researchers.

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.

A New Paradigm for Scientific Publishing, Peer Review, and Impact Assessment

Scientific publishing and peer review have evolved little in three centuries, while the demands placed on them have grown profoundly. The growing role of artificial intelligence has underscored deep, systemic shortcomings of an aging system that has largely evaded innovation, a system whose origins are appallingly closer to the invention of the printing press than to the internet. We can do better – much better. This article is intended as the beginning of a communal experiment: a living document that critically reviews the modern academic publishing and peer-review system and presents a concrete framework to address what bibliometrics experts¹ have characterized as "the pervasive misapplication of indicators to the evaluation of scientific performance". Building on the Leiden Manifesto, DORA, and a body of scholarship spanning many disciplines and decades, we present a community-governed, non-profit platform organized around three trust-weighted impact factors, for articles, authors, and reviewers, with full algorithmic transparency, an open development log, and structural decoupling of credibility scoring from content moderation and from monetization. We invite the community to discuss, critique, and help shape it.

Open Science 2.0: Building Understanding in an AI-Mediated World - The Scholarly Kitchen

Open Science 2.0 must focus not only on access, but also on trust, interpretation, learning, and effective communication. The challenge facing the scholarly publishing ecosystem is ensuring that what is open is also trustworthy, understandable, and genuinely useful.

Guest Post — AI Can Find the Article. Can It Tell Which Version It Used? - The Scholarly Kitchen

In this AI era, establishing trust and validating article versions with persistent identifiers (PIDs) is more important than ever.

AI, peer review and the human activity of science

When researchers cede their scientific judgement to machines, we lose something important.

Guest Post — Exploring Data Spaces in Scholarly Communications - The Scholarly Kitchen

Today's guest post explains the new data space pilot, which will be the focus of the upcoming BISG/SSP webinar on May 12, 2026.

You can just review things: A digital ethnography of informal peer review

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and...

We mourn our craft

I didn’t ask for this and neither did you. I didn’t ask for a robot to consume every blog post and piece of code I ever wrote and parrot it back so that some hack could make money off o…

AI Research Assistant Claude Scholar: Open Source, Free, and Citation-Verified | João Cláudio Nunes Carvalho posted on the topic | LinkedIn

🚨 Professors are going to hate this. Someone just open sourced an AI that writes research papers from idea to publication. Conference-ready. Citation-verified. Free. It's called Claude Scholar. An AI-powered research system that handles every step of the academic workflow. Idea to publication. Fully automated. No advisor at 2am. No staring at blank LaTeX files. No crying during rebuttal season. Here's what's inside this thing: → AI brainstorms research topics, reviews literature, and finds gaps nobody has explored → Runs statistical analysis on your experiments. t-tests, ANOVA, ablation studies. Publication-ready figures. → Writes your paper section by section. Abstract to conclusion. Conference-formatted. → Verifies every citation through multi-layer validation so AI never hallucinates a reference → Strips robotic AI language and adds human voice so reviewers can't tell → Self-reviews your draft with a 6-point quality checklist before you submit → Parses reviewer comments, classifies each one, and drafts your entire rebuttal Here's the wildest part: It supports NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, Nature, Science, Cell, and PNAS. Downloads the conference template, strips sample content, and gives you a clean LaTeX structure ready to write into. The creator says it covers 90% of the academic research lifecycle. Research assistants charge $30 to $60/hour. Conference paper consultants charge $5,000+. Graduate programs cost $50K/year. This is free. All of it. 100% Open Source.