iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Jay Van Bavel, PhD @jayvanbavel.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

The impact of AI is already producing a massive flood of content in so many creative industries--I don't know how we are going review or evaluate all this stuff. The peer review system was already at a breaking point. www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...

4249 0

awittyhandle.bsky.social @awittyhandle.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

I think a solution might be to publish everything on Arxiv or a similar platform, and be responsible for finding your own reviewers. They would then be publicly listed on a co-author level. This way, you benefit from the review process, but you are also responsible for the content of the paper.

020 0

awittyhandle.bsky.social @awittyhandle.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

The same ist true for the funding system. There was an article in nature about this topic. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

nature.com

Could agentic AI topple grant-funding systems?

Funders must take action before an increase in submission of high-quality proposals written using AI models makes it impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff.

020 0

Nafnlaus 🇮🇸🇪🇺🇺🇦 @nafnlaus.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

I mean, I know nobody is going to be happy with the answer, but it's going to mean turning over more review to AI as well, with humans as "metareviewers", making sure that the mean quality of AI reviews is as good or better than human reviewers, and dealing with the exceptions when it misses.

000 0

Tim Verstynen @tdverstynen.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

Maybe this would explain why a typically reliable journal (that rhymes with “ross plomp bio”) has let one of my manuscripts sit without going out to review for 3+ months this year?

020 0