SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Funding agencies say no to AI peer review
0 references·6 citing·25 second hop
Funding agencies say no to AI peer review (2023)Funding agencies say no to AI peer reviewThe Controversy behind the Controversies: Scientific Discourse in the Twenty-First Century (2025)The Controversy behind the Co…Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary (2025)Delving into LLM-assisted wri…Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research (2025)Alternative models of funding…AI-powered peer review needs human supervision (2024)AI-powered peer review needs …AI-assisted prescreening of biomedical research proposals: ethical considerations and the pilot case of “la Caixa” Foundation (2024)AI-assisted prescreening of b…AI in Peer Review: Publishing’s Panacea or a Pandora’s Box of Problems? (2024)AI in Peer Review: Publishing…The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened (2023)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Bias in peer review (2012)Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (2017)GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs (2024)Nursing Academic Reviewers’ Perspectives on AI‐Assisted Peer Review: Ethical Challenges and Acceptance (2025)Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases (2021)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT (2023)Large language models in peer review: challenges and opportunities (2025)Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process (2025)Artificial intelligence in scholarly peer review: a scoping review of applications, risks, and governance challenges (2026)The Matthew effect in science funding (2018)A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation (2019)Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency (2019)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges (2026)AI and Its Impact on Creativity and Diversity: An Empirical Study of LLM-Generated Product Ideas (2023)ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI (2024)Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus (2026)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2025Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary396 cited
  • 2024AI-powered peer review needs human supervision17 cited
  • 2024AI-assisted prescreening of biomedical research proposals: ethical considerations and the pilot case of “la Caixa” Foundation15 cited
  • 2024AI in Peer Review: Publishing’s Panacea or a Pandora’s Box of Problems?10 cited
  • 2025Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research7 cited
  • 2025The Controversy behind the Controversies: Scientific Discourse in the Twenty-First Century5 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work