Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians hosts publishers too

Get Started

Where did all the AI experts come from? They used to be virologists…

Authors: Yana Suchikova,Natalia Tsybuliak
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Publish date: 2025-3-17
ISSN: 0951-5666,1435-5655 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-025-02287-w
View on Publisher's Website
Ch587t
Participant
2 weeks, 1 day ago 5 Replies
Up
0
Down
::

In my opinion as a senior health professional, the article presents a misleading and oversimplified narrative, equating AI’s growth with opportunistic research shifts during COVID-19. It lacks empirical evidence for its claim that former virologists now dominate AI, ignoring that AI is inherently interdisciplinary and has long attracted diverse expertise. The assertion of declining research quality is also unsupported, as AI advancements continue across various fields. Dismissing newcomers contradicts scientific progress, which thrives on cross-field collaboration. The article sensationalizes rather than analyzes, offering rhetoric over data. A constructive critique would focus on strengthening peer review and interdisciplinary rigor rather than discouraging diverse contributions.

I would appreciate clarification from the authors and the journal editors on the concerns raised regarding the article’s claims. Specifically, how does the article justify its assertion that AI research quality has declined due to an influx of non-traditional researchers, given the lack of empirical evidence? Additionally, how does it account for the interdisciplinary nature of AI, which has historically benefited from contributions across fields?

Furthermore, given the potential adverse implications of discouraging cross-disciplinary engagement, how does the journal ensure that such content does not unintentionally undermine scientific collaboration or perpetuate exclusionary narratives that could hinder progress in AI and related domains?

All Replies

Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

Jbn8086
Participant
2 weeks ago

According to the AI & SOCIETY journal’s website (https://link.springer.com/journal/146/updates/19770710), Curmudgeon Corner is not a formal journal article but rather an extended, passionate, and well-informed critique or Letter to the Editor written in an informal style. Additionally, it appears that Curmudgeon Corner articles are not subject to standard peer review but are instead reviewed solely by the Editorial Board.

Regardless, I also find this content misleading. The responsibility for allowing such an oversimplified and unsupported narrative to be published falls on the editor(s) who reviewed this piece. Given the potential consequences of spreading unsubstantiated claims about research transitions, I believe the journal should reconsider its review process for such contributions to ensure that even opinion pieces maintain intellectual integrity and do not distort the reality of interdisciplinary scientific advancements.

Jbn8086
Participant
1 week, 6 days ago

@Ch587t, since this content was only editorially reviewed, I suggest escalating the issue to the responsible editor(s) for further clarification and accountability.

Ch587t
Participant
1 week, 3 days ago

Thank you, @Jbn8086, for your thoughtful engagement. Given the urgency of the topic and the fact that editorial oversight alone governed the publication of this piece, I have indeed included the editors in this discussion. Their involvement is central to addressing the concerns raised, particularly with regard to maintaining academic responsibility, even in editorial or opinion formats. I will also follow up further to seek clarity on how such narratives are evaluated and approved, especially when they carry implications for interdisciplinary collaboration and scientific discourse.

ScienceGuardians Admin
Keymaster
5 days, 5 hours ago

Thank you to all participants for your contributions to this discussion. We understand that this topic has prompted important questions about editorial processes and interdisciplinary representation in academic publishing.

We also acknowledge that journal editors have already been included in the conversation, given the editorially-reviewed nature of the piece. While we support transparency and accountability in academic publishing, we would like to remind our community of a core ScienceGuardians™ best practice:

Before formally contacting journals or escalating issues, please allow the original authors a reasonable opportunity to respond—
**Specifically, we recommend a response window of 7 to 10 calendar days from the time the authors are clearly informed—**in writing and in good faith—that a lack of engagement may lead to official outreach to the journal, its editors, or the publisher’s research integrity team.

This practice helps ensure fairness, avoids premature escalation, and promotes constructive scientific dialogue. We encourage continued discussion here while allowing time for clarification or response from the authors.

As always, the ScienceGuardians™ team is here to help maintain a respectful, evidence-based, and accountable exchange.

 

Ch587t
Participant
4 days, 21 hours ago

Dear authors, as previously noted, several concerns have been raised in this thread regarding the claims made in your article, particularly around interdisciplinary engagement in AI and the assertion of declining research quality. In the interest of fairness and constructive dialogue, and in accordance with ScienceGuardians best practices, I would like to inform you that if no response is received within 10 calendar days, the matter may be formally escalated to the journal’s editors and the publisher’s research integrity team. Your engagement is encouraged and would be sincerely appreciated.

Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.