Climate scholar discusses peer review dilemmas in the AI era
Understand this story
A climate science researcher publicly points out that peer review was already malfunctioning before the AI boom: finding reviewers and editors is increasingly difficult, and some papers take over a month just for typesetting. He advocates that more research fields borrow the practice of AI frontier labs directly publishing preprints, and notes that Earth System Science Data has already launched a "living data" pathway for describing continuously updated datasets. Facing a surge in AI-generated papers, he believes the "AI disclosure" required by journals is often too brief and random to explain how tools are actually used.
AI overview based on source reports · Updated 11 hr ago
Coverage timeline
Follow the coverage to explore different perspectives.
- Hacker News AISome thoughts on AI, scientific papers, and peer review
A climate scientist reflects on the strains in peer review and publication that predate the recent AI boom, and argues more fields should embrace preprints and non-peer-reviewed outlets for sharing research updates. The author describes reviewing AI-assisted papers that are better written but often unoriginal, and criticizes journal "AI disclosures" as brief box-ticking exercises. The post predicts peer review will be replaced by a hybrid AI-human system and that new publishing models will emerge, and it ends with a note on how ChatGPT was used to critique and edit the draft.
Activity for this story
- Current comparable activity
- 8
- Peak comparable activity
- 10Nov 8 04:00
- Change in the past 24 hours
- –
Trends compare the same fully observed participants, which may cover fewer participants than current activity. Move the pointer or tap the chart to inspect hourly activity; use the left and right arrow keys with a keyboard.