3 ms·
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve th
by SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.
- watwut 4mo agoBig part of the annoyance is that journals demand basically free labor - while costing massive amount of money if you want to read them. A review call might just end up being less work then reading a lot of slop papers.
- magic_hamster 4mo agoIf the problem is that there are too many AI slop papers, then requiring real human input and feedback can help reduce these numbers. Let's say you have to defend your paper in person before you submit it, it will cut slop submissions dramatically. The current system is just not built for a world with LLMs producing mountains of content with automation.