It is Peer Review Week and the theme for 2025 is “Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era”. This is not surprising given the rapid rise in the use and capabilities of artificial intelligence. However, views on AI are deeply polarized for reasons that span its legality, efficacy and even its morality.

A recent survey done by IOP Publishing – the scientific publisher that brings you Physics World – reveals that physicists who do peer review are polarized regarding whether AI should be used in the process.

IOPP’s Laura Feetham-Walker is lead author of AI and Peer Review 2025, which describes the survey and analyses its results. She joins me in this episode of the Physics World Weekly podcast in a conversation that explores reviewers’ perceptions of AI and their views of how it should, or shouldn’t, be used in peer review.

The post Peer review in the age of artificial intelligence appeared first on Physics World.

The president won’t prevail in court. But his cases against media companies have a potential chilling effect on criticism of the government

Donald Trump has sued the New York Times for, well, reporting on Trump.

Rather than charging the Times with any specific libelous act, Trump’s lawsuit is just another of his angry bloviations.

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist and his newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com. His new book, Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, is out now

Artificial intelligence (AI) could help sniff out questionable open-access publications that are more interested in profit than scientific integrity. That is according to an analysis of 15,000 scientific journals by an international team of computer scientists. They find that dubious journals tend to publish an unusually high number of articles and feature authors who have many affiliations and frequently self-cite (Sci. Adv. 11 eadt2792).

Open access removes the requirement for traditional subscriptions. Articles are instead made immediately and freely available for anyone to read, with publication costs covered by authors by paying an article-processing charge.

But as the popularity of open-access journals has risen, there has been a growth in “predatory” journals that exploit the open-access model by making scientists pay publication fees without a proper peer-review process in place.

To build an AI-based method for distinguishing legitimate from questionable journals, Daniel Acuña, a computer scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, and colleagues used the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) – an online, community-curated index of open-access journals.

The researchers trained their machine-learning model on 12,869 journals indexed on the DOAJ and 2536 journals that have been removed from the DOAJ due to questionable practices that violate the community’s listing criteria. The team then tested the tool on 15,191 journals listed by Unpaywall, an online directory of free research articles.

To identify questionable journals, the AI-system analyses journals’ bibliometric information and the content and design of their websites, scrutinising details such as the affiliations of editorial board members and the average author h-index – a metric that quantifies a researcher’s productivity and impact.

The AI-model flagged 1437 journals as questionable, with the researchers concluding that 1092 were genuinely questionable while 345 were false positives.

They also identified around 1780 problematic journals that the AI screening failed to flag. According to the study authors, their analysis shows that problematic publishing practices leave detectable patterns in citation behaviour such as the last authors having a low h-index together with a high rate of self-citation.

Acuña adds that the tool could help to pre-screen large numbers of journals, adding, however, that “human professionals should do the final analysis”. The researcher’s novel AI screening system isn’t publicly accessible but they hope to make it available to universities and publishing companies soon.

The post Artificial intelligence could help detect ‘predatory’ journals appeared first on Physics World.

Fulqrum Publishing has announced that its old-school sci-fi horror FPS, HYPERVIOLENT, will be fully released on September 23rd. The game has been in Early Access since April 2023. This means that it took the devs over two years to reach their final version. To celebrate it, the publisher shared a new trailer that you can … Continue reading Old-school Sci-fi Horror FPS HYPERVIOLENT to be fully released on September 23rd →

The post Old-school Sci-fi Horror FPS HYPERVIOLENT to be fully released on September 23rd appeared first on DSOGaming.

Researchers in the US who receive tenure produce more novel but less impactful work, according to an analysis of the output of more than 12,000 academics across 15 disciplines. The study also finds that publication rates rise steeply and steadily during tenure-track, typically peaking the year before a scientist receives a permanent position. After tenure, their average publication rate settles near the peak value.

Carried out by data scientists led by Giorgio Tripodi from Northwestern University in Illinois, the study examined the publication history of academics five years before tenure and five years after. The researchers say that the observed pattern – a rise before tenure, followed by a peak and then a steady level – is highly reproducible.

“Tenure in the US academic system is a very peculiar contract,” explains Tripodi. “It [features] a relatively long probation period followed by a permanent appointment [which is] a strong incentive to maximize research output and avoid projects that are more likely to fail during the tenure track.”

The study reveals that academics in non-lab-based disciplines, such as mathematics, business, economics, sociology and political science, exhibit a fall in research output after tenure. But for those in the other 10 disciplines, including physics, publication rates are sustained around the pre-tenure peak.

“In lab-based fields, collaborative teams and sustained funding streams may help maintain high productivity post-tenure,” says Tripodi. “In contrast, in more individual-centred disciplines like mathematics or sociology, where research output is less dependent on continuous lab operation, the post-tenure slowdown appears to be more pronounced.”

The team also looked at the proportion of high-impact papers – defined as those in the top 5% of a field – and found that researchers in all 15 disciplines publish more high-impact papers before tenure than after. As for “novelty” – defined as atypical combinations of work – this increases with time, but the most novel papers tend to appear after tenure.

According to Tripodi, once tenure and job security has been secured, the pressure to publish shifts towards other objectives – a move that explains the plateau or decline seen in the publication data. “Our results show that tenure allows scientists to take more risks, explore novel research directions, and reorganize their research portfolio,” he adds.

The post Tenured scientists in the US slow down and produce less impactful work, finds study appeared first on Physics World.