Papers that are more difficult to read might be worth it if AI increased the amount of good science being produced. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. Organization Science is desk-rejecting (e.g., rejecting a paper before even sending it to peer reviewers) nearly 70% of manuscripts that made heavy use of AI. This number drops to 44% for papers written without AI.
Nah he's out of touch with modern research. Publishers are flooded with high quality human-made manuscripts, not just AI crap. This is especially true of math and physics. Submission have increased far in excess of audience size or # of publishers, so higher rejection rates are inevitable. In math or physics at least, desk rejects are more common due to the editors being more picky due to huge volume, not that the quality of research is worse.
Papers that are more difficult to read might be worth it if AI increased the amount of good science being produced. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. Organization Science is desk-rejecting (e.g., rejecting a paper before even sending it to peer reviewers) nearly 70% of manuscripts that made heavy use of AI. This number drops to 44% for papers written without AI.
Nah he's out of touch with modern research. Publishers are flooded with high quality human-made manuscripts, not just AI crap. This is especially true of math and physics. Submission have increased far in excess of audience size or # of publishers, so higher rejection rates are inevitable. In math or physics at least, desk rejects are more common due to the editors being more picky due to huge volume, not that the quality of research is worse.