Thanks Johan - the concerns in this piece resonate beyond academia — investigative journalism faces a similar reckoning, albeit without the financial incentives universities enjoy for publishing research.
These tools can greatly increase the speed of research, crunching of data, trend and pattern spotting in financial statements and the like; not to mention the ease of publishing this story in multiple formats, from text to video and on numerous platforms.
But the real challenge isn’t in the production of stories — it’s in the decision-making around what gets published and how. The ecosystem of verification, editorial oversight, and ethical checks — the very things that should slow down a journalist in the name of rigour is at risk. Many investigative journalists today, despite their best efforts, are less experienced, under-resourced, and pressured to work at AI-driven speeds.
Much like academia faces the risk of an AI-fueled flood of theory-light research, investigative journalism is staring down a similar crisis — one where the pressure to produce outweighs the discipline of verification. We already have a trust problem on our hands.
While AI enhances scientific productivity, could it become a barrier for the next generation of researchers?
Previous generations had to overcome challenges to develop their research and analytical skills. However, AI simplifies these processes so much that the new generation might progress without acquiring these essential skills. If researchers and scientists start relying on AI without first mastering fundamental abilities, could this ultimately limit scientific progress? How realistic do you think this risk is?
This really describes more of the supply side. The actual production of manuscripts. But in equilibrium, unless there is an expansion in journal pages/articles/issues, then would drive down acceptance rates but not change the actual scientific output. What’s your sense of that new equilibrium?
Scott, it feels like countless local journals qualify for government subsidy. They often don't have page limits – especially if they're digital only. But you're right, in the extreme that this increases by 10x or 100x, then demand-side limits will kick in, and acceptance rates will fall.
I think the real struggle will be for journal editors – both to desk reject and, in particular, to find referees. I often hear stories of editors at even good journals going through dozens of referee requests before one accepts. When submissions increase by 10x, that will very likely collapse the refereeing system. And I'm not sure what the alternative is.
This is one of those times when it does seem like economics as a field with its extremely resilient journal ranking system (eg top 5, top field) will apply. Can a LLM write a QJE? Or are LLMs going to produce more papers for journals that function basically as mills? If it’s the former, then that’s truly the Turing test to be honest. That’s AGI if an LLM can write a paper that gets published at QJE, maybe even if it gets past the desk. But I wonder what should the reasoning be about publishing at the lower ranked journals where citations are already low and the journals articles aren’t widely read. If an LLM wrote those papers, then it would t have consumed human time. That does seem like a net improvement in a way given the scarcity of human time. but I’m not sure yet how best to count these costs and benefits.
You describe the system well, but your predictions are wishful thinking, I'm afraid..
Researchers and universities became addicted to this funding model, where quantity is all that matters..
UCT and SU probably don't abuse the system that much, but there's an entire different planet outside the Cape Peninsula..
Thanks Johan - the concerns in this piece resonate beyond academia — investigative journalism faces a similar reckoning, albeit without the financial incentives universities enjoy for publishing research.
These tools can greatly increase the speed of research, crunching of data, trend and pattern spotting in financial statements and the like; not to mention the ease of publishing this story in multiple formats, from text to video and on numerous platforms.
But the real challenge isn’t in the production of stories — it’s in the decision-making around what gets published and how. The ecosystem of verification, editorial oversight, and ethical checks — the very things that should slow down a journalist in the name of rigour is at risk. Many investigative journalists today, despite their best efforts, are less experienced, under-resourced, and pressured to work at AI-driven speeds.
Much like academia faces the risk of an AI-fueled flood of theory-light research, investigative journalism is staring down a similar crisis — one where the pressure to produce outweighs the discipline of verification. We already have a trust problem on our hands.
Wrong
While AI enhances scientific productivity, could it become a barrier for the next generation of researchers?
Previous generations had to overcome challenges to develop their research and analytical skills. However, AI simplifies these processes so much that the new generation might progress without acquiring these essential skills. If researchers and scientists start relying on AI without first mastering fundamental abilities, could this ultimately limit scientific progress? How realistic do you think this risk is?
This really describes more of the supply side. The actual production of manuscripts. But in equilibrium, unless there is an expansion in journal pages/articles/issues, then would drive down acceptance rates but not change the actual scientific output. What’s your sense of that new equilibrium?
Scott, it feels like countless local journals qualify for government subsidy. They often don't have page limits – especially if they're digital only. But you're right, in the extreme that this increases by 10x or 100x, then demand-side limits will kick in, and acceptance rates will fall.
I think the real struggle will be for journal editors – both to desk reject and, in particular, to find referees. I often hear stories of editors at even good journals going through dozens of referee requests before one accepts. When submissions increase by 10x, that will very likely collapse the refereeing system. And I'm not sure what the alternative is.
This is one of those times when it does seem like economics as a field with its extremely resilient journal ranking system (eg top 5, top field) will apply. Can a LLM write a QJE? Or are LLMs going to produce more papers for journals that function basically as mills? If it’s the former, then that’s truly the Turing test to be honest. That’s AGI if an LLM can write a paper that gets published at QJE, maybe even if it gets past the desk. But I wonder what should the reasoning be about publishing at the lower ranked journals where citations are already low and the journals articles aren’t widely read. If an LLM wrote those papers, then it would t have consumed human time. That does seem like a net improvement in a way given the scarcity of human time. but I’m not sure yet how best to count these costs and benefits.
Universities have created their own journals, which although low quality, are in the so called list..
There's path dependence and entrenched interests..
Also, 5 in AER don't make you an Associate Prof..
The incentives are upside down..
Difficult to change, even with technology..
Good post!