Danny Kingsley argues that "in the same way that a decade ago, open access was a scapegoat for scholarly communication, now generative AI is a scapegoat for the scholarly publishing system. These concerns have an underlying assumption – the current system is working. We need to ask: is it?" My answer - as readers know well - is that it is not. As Kingsley argues, "there is already a groundswell against the current research assessment system," because the current system - which depends on things like unpaid reviewers, citation counts, and impact factors - is too easily gamed. "Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published.... prolific authors in high impact scientific journals (mostly with journalism degrees) who were themselves not researchers found a startling level of publication across multiple research areas."
Today: 1 Total: 86 [Direct link] [Share]
