If we are going to lean on the creativity and the cross-domain thinking of human researchers, then surely that should be where the human time goes.
Is the scientific paper still a fraud?
How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science. Their formal structure infers a pre-ordained linear process rather than reflecting the messy creativity of research. This matters in the AI age because it masks the human in the process.
Why we built the Journal of Research on Research and what it cost us - LSE Impact
Gemma Derrick, Bart Penders, Serge Horbach & Tony Ross-Hellauer reflect on the choices, challenges & compromises of launching the Journal of Research on Research
Posts
Do Not Research is a collaborative platform for publishing writing, visual art and beyond.
Posts
Do Not Research is a collaborative platform for publishing writing, visual art and beyond.
Thinking is not only writing
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) raises valid concerns about the loss of cognitive work embedded in scholarly writing. However, universally dismissing AI-assisted drafting mistakenly conflates writing with thinking itself and reinforces existing inequities in who can transform their ideas into polished text. Academic authorship should depend more on the depth and creativity of human intellectual engagement than on the medium through which first drafts are produced.
What Makes Us Smart?
Human creativity does not solely rely on our individual cognitive abilities, but instead emerges from the recombination of ideas, practices, and approaches that result from social interactions and id...
Are Scientific Papers Bad?
ETCH
We believe technology should serve humanity and that human creativity is essential and irreplaceable. We support the ethical development and deployment of AI by funding protective technologies and translating research into real-world tools for creative communities.
if you've never written an essay for fun, you're making yourself dumber
The only reason you’ll ever need not to write with AI — The Carlson Lab
Over the last year, our lab has been developing a policy on AI use. To do this, we did three main things: We read a lot of academic publications and tech news. We set up an #ai channel on our lab Slack to share news, experiences, and memes. We had several long and grueling lab meetings talk
The new way we’ll do science
Papers should become human-readable views over a graph of data, tools, results, and certificates.
Writing Is Thinking
When you write about your work, it makes all of us smarter for the effort, including you. Done well, this kind of sharing means you’re contributing signal, instead of noise. But writers are made, n…
Brian D. Earp, Ph.D. on Twitter / X
"Writing is thinking." This phrase went viral recently (from https://t.co/EQqohfhUMd), often quoted in the context of objections to use of AI in drafting academic prose. In Nature Reviews Bioengineering we respond: "Thinking is not only writing." Preview below. Shareable full… pic.twitter.com/cZtGdoSwqV— Brian D. Earp, Ph.D. (@briandavidearp) May 15, 2026
The Micro-Paper: Towards cheaper, citable research ideas and conversations
Academic, peer-reviewed short papers are a common way to present a late-breaking work to the academic community that outlines preliminary findings, research ideas, and novel conversations. By comparison, blogging or writing posts on social media are an unstructured and open way to discuss ideas and start new conversations. Both have limitations in the proliferation of research ideas. The short paper format relies on the conference and journal submission process while blogging does not operate within a structured format or set of expectations at all. However, at times the demand exists for late-breaking ideas and conversations to arise in a raw form or with urgency but should still be archived and recorded in a way that promotes citational honesty and integrity. To address this, I present: The Micro-Paper, as a micro-paper itself. The Micro-Paper is a small, cheap, accessible, digital document that is self-published and archived, akin to a pre-print of a short paper. This meta micro-paper discusses the context, goals, and considerations of micro-paper authoring.
#predictingthefuture #newfutureofwork | Jaime Teevan
🌱 Prediction: Knowledge will outgrow publication. We’re already seeing academic publication start to buckle under AI, sometimes absurdly. I still publish research more or less the way Darwin did. I run a study, write it up, a few other scientists check it over, and the result gets filed away as a document with my name on the front. Faster than Darwin, with better figures, but the same basic shape. I predict that shape won’t last another decade. Academic authors are starting to slip hidden instructions into papers to flatter the AI that might review them. Reviewers are spending time checking whether citations exist or were hallucinated. Researchers asking AI to tell them about a paper instead of reading it directly. These are signs that the creation of new knowledge is outgrowing the articles that used to contain it. An academic paper serves many purposes at once. It makes an argument legible. It lets strangers check one's reasoning. It assigns credit and responsibility. It records who knew what and when. A paper was the only container we had for these different jobs, so it carried all of them together. With AI, they can be separated. My guess is that means the unit of publication will get smaller. Much of my research has focused on microproductivity, developing the idea that large accomplishments can be built from many small contributions. Publication will start to become a form of microproductivity. Instead of holding onto a result until it can be wrapped in a narrative large enough to justify a paper, researchers will publish it the moment it’s solid. Each finding, method, or negative result will be citable and carry its own provenance, so credit and reasoning travel with it. Reviewing will shrink to match, so claims get checked as they’re made instead of in one verdict at the end. But more than changing publication, the deeper change will be to how research itself is done. You may have heard the term “compound engineering,” where every bug fixed, evaluation written, workflow documented, or lesson learned becomes part of the system’s memory. I predict we’re about to see “compound science,” where every experiment, evaluation, insight, artifact, and learned capability becomes a reusable asset for future discovery. Findings will become evidence. Methods will become building blocks. Failed approaches will become constraints. For centuries, science has relied on humans to navigate an ever-growing body of knowledge. Soon that body of knowledge will help navigate itself. Scientists will spend less time searching for hypotheses and more time deciding which opportunities to pursue. AI systems will propose explanations, design experiments, run analyses, and explore many possibilities in parallel. Every discovery will become a part of the machinery that produces the next one. Papers ten years from now will look less like my current papers than my current papers look like Darwin’s. If they exist at all. #PredictingTheFuture #NewFutureOfWork
