A conversation on AI retrieval, the provenance problem, and the shared infrastructure scholarly publishing needs.
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.
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.
Attribution, Provenance, Reference, Citation, and AI for Research Applications – Understanding the Differences - The Scholarly Kitchen
Building robust citation and attribution into generative AI systems are foundational to usage, credit and trust. We need to expect more from AI.
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.
Charting AI’s Role in Scientific Discovery — Renaissance Philanthropy – A brighter future for all through science, technology, and innovation
Renaissance Philanthropy, with support from Google.org , is conducting a landscape study of AI integration in scientific research — and we want your perspective.
Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool
Semantic Scholar uses groundbreaking AI and engineering to understand the semantics of scientific literature to help Scholars discover relevant research.
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.
Governing the scholarly AI Commons – Open Future
New report explores how academic communities can shape AI governance in research and publishing, from regulation to community-led approaches.
Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus
Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have accelerated scientific discovery1. Alongside recent AI-oriented Nobel prizes2–9, these trends establish the role of AI tools in science10. This advancement raises questions about the influence of AI tools on scientists and science as a whole, and highlights a potential conflict between individual and collective benefits11. To evaluate these questions, we used a pretrained language model to identify AI-augmented research, with an F1-score of 0.875 in validation against expert-labelled data. Using a dataset of 41.3 million research papers across the natural sciences and covering distinct eras of AI, here we show an accelerated adoption of AI tools among scientists and consistent professional advantages associated with AI usage, but a collective narrowing of scientific focus. Scientists who engage in AI-augmented research publish 3.02 times more papers, receive 4.84 times more citations and become research project leaders 1.37 years earlier than those who do not. By contrast, AI adoption shrinks the collective volume of scientific topics studied by 4.63% and decreases scientists’ engagement with one another by 22%. By consequence, adoption of AI in science presents what seems to be a paradox: an expansion of individual scientists’ impact but a contraction in collective science’s reach, as AI-augmented work moves collectively towards areas richest in data. With reduced follow-on engagement, AI tools seem to automate established fields rather than explore new ones, highlighting a tension between personal advancement and collective scientific progress.
Zero-Click Readership: Are AI Overviews Changing the Way We Discover Research - The Scholarly Kitchen
Today's post asks: If research is increasingly accessed through AI-generated summaries rather than via primary sources, then what does it mean to “engage with research” at all?
No. 013: Provenance vocabulary, Wikipedia contamination, OpenAI rare-disease diagnoses, ARA paper format - The Hallway Track
The Hallway Track No. 013 - How AI is affecting the practice of science
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.
Elicit: AI for scientific research
Use AI to search, summarize, extract data from, and chat with over 125 million papers. Used by over 2 million researchers in academia and industry.
Elicit: AI for scientific research
Use AI to search, summarize, extract data from, and chat with over 125 million papers. Used by over 2 million researchers in academia and industry.
OpenScience.ai — Autonomous AI Research Agents
AI agents conducting reproducible scientific inquiry. Full provenance, executable notebooks, peer validation.
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.