The problem with AI may not be that machines are growing more intelligent. It may be that we are becoming increasingly skilled at amplifying a highly capable, but limited form of cognition.

The problem with AI may not be that machines are growing more intelligent. It may be that we are becoming increasingly skilled at amplifying a highly capable, but limited form of cognition.

The problem with AI may not be that machines are growing more intelligent. It may be that we are becoming increasingly skilled at amplifying a highly capable, but limited form of cognition.

Let's continue our "Ask the Chefs" conversation about what they might do differently with their open access strategy if they knew then what they know now.

Let's continue our "Ask the Chefs" conversation about what they might do differently with their open access strategy if they knew then what they know now.

What if the systems designed to protect scientific rigor are also making it harder for new ideas to emerge? Do different scholarly contributions deserve unique forms of evaluation?

What if the systems designed to protect scientific rigor are also making it harder for new ideas to emerge? Do different scholarly contributions deserve unique forms of evaluation?

For Peer Review Week 2026, we asked the Chefs two questions: What is one uncomfortable truth about peer review that the scholarly publishing community doesn’t talk about enough? And, beyond recruiting...

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, why it's important to keep experime...

The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and meaning.

The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and mean...

The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and mean...

AI is now a permanent feature of the scholarly landscape. The question is no longer whether it should be used, but how it should be understood and governed.

AI is now a permanent feature of the scholarly landscape. The question is no longer whether it should be used, but how it should be understood and governed.

Ghildiyal, Ashutosh. Open Science 2.0: Building Understanding in an AI-Mediated World. The Scholarly Kitchen, 14 de julio de 2026. Disponible en: The Scholarly Kitchen – Open Science 2.0: Building …

Science Was Built for Truth. AI changes how knowledge is accessed. It cannot replace the systems that make knowledge trustworthy.

A few days ago, I came across an article in The Scholarly Kitchen that made me pause. Written by @Ashutosh Ghildiyal, Maria Machado, and Gareth Dyke, Open Science 2.

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 ...