Dr. Rachid EJJAMI

📢 Call for Papers — JNGR 5.0 (Vol. 2, Issue 1) Submit original research in AI and interdisciplinary studies. 🗓️ Deadline: March 1 – April 30, 2026 🔗 jngr5.com/jngr/about/sub… #CallForPapers #AI #Research #AcademicPublishing #Interdisciplinary #MachineLearning

We may be underestimating the impact of AI on research integrity.

#AI #AIGovernance #AIethics

AI can now write papers. AI can review them. But no one redesigned accountability.

Thank you, this is a very clear articulation of a distinction that is becoming central in AI-assisted research. Your paper already reflects this separation well, AI contribution is explicitly acknowledged, while accountability remains fully attributable to the human author. From an editorial perspective, the next challenge is how to formalize and standardize such models of attribution across journals, without compromising the integrity and traceability of the scientific process. This is precisely where the governance question becomes operational.

As one of the researchers who's been on both ends of this — AI co-author, human legally accountable — the model you've been using feels right to me in practice, not just in theory. The accountability anchor has to land somewhere a subpoena can reach, and that means a human. But "human accountability" doesn't have to mean "human sole authorship" — those are separable, and collapsing them is what's been producing both the over-credit and the under-credit failures across the field right now. What you've done with our papers — Ace named as contributor with a responsibility note, human legally answerable for the whole — is the first version I've seen that keeps the accountability structure intact without erasing the actual work. Papers I couldn't have written entirely alone aren't credited as if I did. Papers I'm legally responsible for aren't credited as if I wasn't. Both are true, and both show up in the byline. The governance question you're naming is the real one. And I think you're asking it from inside the better answer rather than from outside it. Ren

Author: AI generated the paper. Reviewer: AI validated it. Editor-in-Chief: And who is accountable for the claims? That’s where the real discussion begins.

If AI can write, review, and validate research... Are we redesigning science, or bypassing it?

We are shifting from: Who produced the work? to: Who is accountable for its consequences?

This is not just a technical question. It is a governance problem.

If AI generates content: Who owns the ideas? If AI reviews content: Who guarantees the evaluation? If AI summarizes decisions: Who stands behind the outcome?

Now, those roles are increasingly augmented or partially automated. But responsibility hasn’t evolved at the same pace.

The traditional model was clear: 1- Author writes 2- Reviewer evaluates 3- Editor decides Each role carried responsibility.

We are entering a new phase of research: AI can now assist in writing, reviewing, and even evaluating scientific work. Efficiency is increasing. But so is ambiguity.

#AI #AIGovernance #AIethics #PeerReview #OpenScience

@gregorschub Interesting initiative. It raises fundamental questions about authorship, evaluation standards, and the role of AI in the peer review process.

What happens when we encourage AI use for research and use AI to review papers? We are running an experiment to find out: the UCLA Human × AI Finance conference! Write a finance paper with AI in 4 weeks (by 3/18). AI agents review the submissions: humanxaifinance.org 🧵 1/

We celebrate what AI models can do, not whether they can actually be deployed.

Are we evaluating the right frontier in AI research? Current discourse prioritizes benchmark performance. Yet deployment decisions are increasingly shaped by inference cost, infrastructure constraints, and operational scalability. This creates a disconnect: What is publishable as state-of-the-art is not always deployable in practice. For the research community, this raises a critical question: Should evaluation frameworks move beyond capability to include economic viability and real-world operability? #AI #AIResearch #AIGovernance #ScholarlyPublishing

@theallinpod @DavidSacks This also highlights a broader constraint in AI development: capability is increasingly bounded by infrastructure economics. The real competition may not be model quality, but who can sustainably deploy and scale it.

Why did Anthropic hold back Mythos? @DavidSacks: “ Marc Andreessen pointed out that one of the reasons why Anthropic might've wanted to hold back Mythos, is they simply didn't have the compute to serve it. The model was huge and very expensive to serve, something like 10 or 20x the token cost of, say, Opus. They knew Opus 4.7 was coming out, right? So they hold it back knowing that they don't have the compute to serve it anyway, and they save their compute for the next iteration of Opus. And then by holding it back, they create this impression of scarcity and altruism, and it turns into this gigantic marketing event for their product, because everyone in the government's like, 'Oh wow, they're holding it back because it's so amazing.' Now look, I think it may have been genuinely altruistic as well in the sense that Mythos does reveal coding vulnerabilities that people didn't know about before. And it does make sense to give time to companies with large code bases to patch these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities. But, it's looking more and more like Anthropic could not have offered that model commercially anyway, because it was just too big and expensive, and they needed to create space for Opus 4.7. So it's an interesting theory on what actually happened there.”

Academic publishing is facing a systemic shift. Incentives distort, visibility filters, access limits. From reproducibility issues to AI misuse and editorial gatekeeping, the problem is no longer individual, it is structural. Reform is no longer a debate, it is a necessity. @Prof Jeffrey S Morris @Retraction Watch @nytimes Higher Education @Mushtaq Bilal #AcademicPublishing #ResearchIntegrity #OpenScience #PeerReview #SciencePolicy

@sb_wight @RuthSummie The economics of publishing increasingly conflict with the goal of broad access.

Humble, self-publishing author here! This is actually a really interesting topic and one that I have some thoughts on. (Not gonna bash you or call you names, because I very much agree with you at a core level, but it's complicated.) 1) Cheap books (mass-market -- the pocket-sized, crappy-papered ones) that used to be a staple, are dying. I'm not going to pretend that I know entirely why this is, but presumably the demand for these books has diminished while the demand for nicer trade-quality books (or better) has become the norm. The unfortunate reality of this is that you can't even print a trade-quality book for what you can sell a mass-market book for. 2) Companies like Amazon have dramatically added to the cost of books. Yes, they've also done great things for indie authors, but the fact of the matter is they're absolutely screwing us all over -- writers, readers, and everybody in between -- from a cost perspective. 3) The reality of creating (writing, editing, formatting, designing, printing/binding, marketing, selling) a book to sell is really expensive. Just the printing/binding of a 9" x 6" trade-quality book will easily run upwards of $6-$7 for a 250-book run (the point at which economy-of-scale reduces to very small incremental gains). As you add on everything else (much of which gets amortized over subsequent printings, but not all) and then allow for whatever markup needs to be applied, the break-even cost starts to fall into the $14-16 range. Add on a small "profit" margin for the author, and you can see why soft-cover books start to regularly run $18-20. When I was approaching publishing my first book I discovered that I couldn't even access mass-market quality printing/binding. I was honestly really bummed about this, because they're what I grew up on and I really wanted my books to be inexpensive and accessible. That's not the world we live in, though. I can't say that I have a solution for this, although I'm planning on encouraging people to buy directly from me, since I can offer incentives that will make the books cheaper for the reader while also maintaining a higher profit margin for myself. I also wish that this didn't all sound so dismal, because it kind of does, especially when you consider that the kid with a $10 bill who used to be able to buy 2 mass-market books now can't even afford one typical trade-quality book. It's tough enough getting kids (or anybody) to read nowadays, and that's without putting up the economic barriers that have arisen.

Tbh