I work on the other side of the review process ― I am asked to review potential articles for a chemical engineering journal. I agree that the review process is both slow and unreliable. Which begs the question: why?
Here are some thoughts.
• The reviewers are not paid in most cases. Therefore, the review process drops to the bottom of the priority pile.
• The reviewers are, by definition, leaders in their field, so they are busy people. Reviewing someone’s paper is yet another task.
• The papers are often tendentious. In my area the first few paragraphs are usually about the importance of safety. We know that ― get to the point.
• The papers are often written by authors whose first language is not English, so they can be difficult to follow at times. This is not a criticism of the authors, but I do wonder why they don’t run the draft through ChatGPT first.
• The papers are often highly specialized, so the reviewer will feel obliged to take a pass. For example, my journal has been offered a paper about the chemical industry in China. No one in our group has the knowledge and experience to make constructive comments on this topic.
I have found that the review process is a natural application for Large Language Models. Given a prompt based on the above concerns, these models can be extremely helpful, and they can turn the six-month turnaround to six minutes. (One difficulty is that putting the paper into the LLM provides training material for the LLM itself. However, some of them have ‘private’ switches.)
Actually, I think that the problem is solving itself. If I want to know about a topic in my field I go to ChatGPT or Google. It rarely crosses my mind to read a paper or book. I realize that these engines derive their authority from peer-reviewed information, so we will continue to need professional reviewers.
Note: This comment was reviewed by ChatGPT, and it was helpful.
Indeed. The academic paper is as obsolete as the steam locomotive. But in this case we wanted to go the "formal" way because we think this paper is important in the ongoing discussion
Nice! Congratulations.
Me too i would like a pre-print copy. Thank you.
Send me your email
https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08344. Is this one?
A previous version. The one published on RSC is more in depth, and more extensive
may you send it to me? thank you in advance, alfespo@yahoo.it
Hello Ugo, I wold love to read the pre-print copy. thanks so much, Michael P Totten, totten.michael@gmail.com
Sent!
Thank you Ugo, and thanks so much for your many years of strong advocacy!!
Kerryn again - my email is kerryn1@smartchat.net.au
Good work Ugo. Just realised you wanted preprint requests here, so yes I would like one too
I work on the other side of the review process ― I am asked to review potential articles for a chemical engineering journal. I agree that the review process is both slow and unreliable. Which begs the question: why?
Here are some thoughts.
• The reviewers are not paid in most cases. Therefore, the review process drops to the bottom of the priority pile.
• The reviewers are, by definition, leaders in their field, so they are busy people. Reviewing someone’s paper is yet another task.
• The papers are often tendentious. In my area the first few paragraphs are usually about the importance of safety. We know that ― get to the point.
• The papers are often written by authors whose first language is not English, so they can be difficult to follow at times. This is not a criticism of the authors, but I do wonder why they don’t run the draft through ChatGPT first.
• The papers are often highly specialized, so the reviewer will feel obliged to take a pass. For example, my journal has been offered a paper about the chemical industry in China. No one in our group has the knowledge and experience to make constructive comments on this topic.
I have found that the review process is a natural application for Large Language Models. Given a prompt based on the above concerns, these models can be extremely helpful, and they can turn the six-month turnaround to six minutes. (One difficulty is that putting the paper into the LLM provides training material for the LLM itself. However, some of them have ‘private’ switches.)
Actually, I think that the problem is solving itself. If I want to know about a topic in my field I go to ChatGPT or Google. It rarely crosses my mind to read a paper or book. I realize that these engines derive their authority from peer-reviewed information, so we will continue to need professional reviewers.
Note: This comment was reviewed by ChatGPT, and it was helpful.
Indeed. The academic paper is as obsolete as the steam locomotive. But in this case we wanted to go the "formal" way because we think this paper is important in the ongoing discussion
I'd love a preprint! Thanks.
Sent to your gmail account!
yes a pre-print copy please.
Yes, send me your email
Would love a pre-print copy.
Sure. Send me an email!
olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com