Will AI speed up literature reviews or derail them entirely?
Sam Reynolds, Alec Christie, Lynn Dicks, Sadiq Jaffer, Anil Madhavapeddy, and Bill Sutherland. In Nature. .Sam ReynoldsAlec ChristieLynn DicksSadiq JafferAnil MadhavapeddyWilliam J. Sutherland
Abstract
The publication of ever-larger numbers of problematic papers, including fake ones generated by artificial intelligence, represents an existential crisis for the established way of doing evidence synthesis. But with a new approach, AI might also save the day.
Related
Trip report from the Indian AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, covering the massive expo, a conversation with Yann LeCun, a hackathon/talk at IIT-Delhi, networking at the British High Commission, and reflections on the summit declaration's shift from safety to progress and equitable access.
Growing the Ceph cluster for TESSERA embeddings, a Lego brainstorming session for the Evidence TAP, hosting Echo Labs from ARIA, and Shane's IUCN Red List seminar.
Hosting the UK chief scientists for nature conservation at Pembroke to discuss TESSERA and AI for biodiversity, followed by the Conservation Evidence conference where I talked about choosing the open red pill over black-box AI for conservation decision-making.
Report from a COAR conference on transforming scholarly publishing through the Publish, Review, Curate model, discussing diamond open access, early career challenges, and expanding open infrastructure to datasets and code.
Design principles for collective knowledge systems—permanence, provenance, permission, and placement—that enable robust networks for evidence-based decision making.
Live notes from Royal Society conference on scientific publishing challenges including peer review crisis, AI poisoning threats and open access economics.
Nature comment on AI-generated paper threats to evidence synthesis proposing federated living evidence databases with human-in-loop review.
Conservation Evidence CopilotsJan 2024