Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 124 references

This paper reports outcomes from the inaugural bridge event on AI for scholarly communication and argues that the field's fragmentation, not missing technology, is what slows progress toward reliable, queryable scholarly knowledge bases.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A community perspective on how AI can support scholarly knowledge extraction, organization, and communication, with a proposed classification and ethical considerations.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A competent but methodologically opaque synthesis of the AI4SC Bridge event: useful as an orientation to the AI-for-scholarly-communication tool landscape, but its claims about community-wide priorities rest on an unreported discussion methodology and unsourced statistics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02581 v2 pith:OUFPYN4I submitted 2025-08-27 cs.DL cs.AI

Charting the Future of Scholarly Knowledge with AI: A Community Perspective

Azanzi Jiomekong , Hande K\"u\c{c}\"uk McGinty , Keith G. Mills , Allard Oelen , Enayat Rajabi , Harry McElroy , Antrea Christou , Anmol Saini
show 8 more authors
Janice Anta Zebaze Hannah Kim Anna M. Jacyszyn Gollam Rabby Dirk Betz Claudia Biniossek Sanju Tiwari S\"oren Auer
This is my paper
classification cs.DL cs.AI
keywords AI for scholarly communicationscholarly knowledge graphsliterature review automationresearch lifecycleAI ethicsgenerative AI in researchknowledge extractionsustainable development goals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper wants to establish that AI for scholarly communication is mature enough to be classified and coordinated, and that the main obstacle to reliable, queryable scholarly knowledge is the lack of exchange among research communities working on similar tools. It reports a two-day community workshop that brought together students, practitioners, and AI researchers to identify shared challenges and future directions. Grounded in that event, it proposes a classification of AI systems by research-lifecycle stage, a set of evaluation criteria, and a five-star ethics model for responsible use. If the paper is right, organizing the community around shared challenges and AI-enabled infrastructures would accelerate progress and help researchers cope with millions of new papers each year.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the disparate efforts to apply AI to scholarly knowledge extraction, organization, generation, and review can be seen as one landscape with a common structure. The paper classifies AI systems into four families: literature discovery and knowledge extraction/organization; knowledge generation and editing; peer review, publication, and post-publication; and slide presentation. It then maps these systems onto use in education, food science, physics, environment, economics, and law, and argues that evaluation should combine technical metrics, operational criteria, and social concerns such as fairness and transparency. The central normative claim is

What carries the argument

The paper's load-bearing organizer is the research-lifecycle classification: it divides AI systems according to where they act in scholarly work, from literature discovery and knowledge acquisition to generation, peer review, publication, and presentation. This taxonomy gives the field a shared vocabulary for comparing tools and anticipating their limits. A second mechanism is the five-star ethics framework, adapted from open-data star ratings, which structures responsible use into transparency, accountability, originality and plagiarism, fabrication and hallucination risks, and preservation of human skill. Together, the lifecycle map and ethics ladder carry the argument that progress is les

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions depend on the workshop attendees and their world-café discussions being representative of the broader scholarly AI community; if they are not, the identified shared challenges and future directions may reflect one group's perspective rather than field-level priorities.

What would settle it

A systematic, large-scale survey of researchers across disciplines that found most already use AI tools across all lifecycle stages and report active cross-community collaboration would contradict the fragmentation premise. Likewise, a follow-up assessment showing no new cross-community collaborations or shared infrastructure emerging from the workshop would undermine the claim that such events accelerate integration.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Researchers, publishers, institutions, and policymakers can use the lifecycle classification to select tools and anticipate where AI will fail or need oversight.
  • A shared vocabulary makes it possible to compare tools across communities and to build integrated pipelines instead of disjoint point solutions.
  • Evaluation frameworks that combine accuracy, scalability, fairness, and transparency give journals and reviewers concrete criteria for AI-assisted work.
  • Mapping research impact to the Sustainable Development Goals, with AI assistance, could make scholarly output more actionable for policy.
  • Human-in-the-loop validation and clear accountability rules remain necessary even as AI becomes more autonomous in generating hypotheses, drafts, and reviews.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The classification implies a natural benchmark structure: if the field adopted lifecycle-stage tasks, tool evaluations could be standardized within each stage, which the paper does not explicitly propose.
  • The five-star ethics model could be operationalized as a badge or rating for AI tools in scholarly workflows, parallel to reproducibility badges in computing venues.
  • The paper's premise suggests a testable prediction: communities that share knowledge-graph infrastructure will produce more integrated scholarly knowledge systems than those that keep building domain-specific silos; comparing collaboration networks over the next few years could settle this.
  • The call for automated SDG tagging points to a concrete NLP task—classifying papers by SDG relevance—that the paper notes is currently manual.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a community perspective/report on the AAAI 2025 Bridge on AI for Scholarly Communication (AI4SC). It proposes a four-category taxonomy of AI systems for scholarly communication (literature search/discovery, knowledge generation, peer review/publication, slide presentation), surveys applications across several disciplines and their links to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, discusses evaluation frameworks and ethical considerations, and enumerates opportunities and challenges. The abstract and introduction frame the paper as reporting findings from the Bridge event's technical talks and world-café discussions, with the goal of identifying shared challenges and shaping future research directions.

Significance. If the event synthesis is reliable, the paper provides a useful agenda-setting document for the AI4SC community: it assembles a broad catalog of AI tools and issues, offers a simple organizing taxonomy, and connects scholarly communication to SDG impact in a way that could inform future workshops and research priorities. The paper is best read as a position/report rather than an empirical study. Its main value is synthetic and organizational, and the extensive reference list will help newcomers to the area. However, the paper's central claim—that it reports community-level shared challenges and future directions—depends on undocumented event synthesis, so the significance is contingent on the authors supplying the missing methodological grounding.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 5] The paper claims to report 'findings, results of discussions, and suggested future directions' from the AI4SC Bridge event, but no methodology is provided: there is no participant count, selection criteria, demographic breakdown, description of how world-café sessions were recorded/transcribed, coding scheme, or reliability check. Section 5 then generalizes to field-level conclusions ('AI is profoundly reshaping the scholarly landscape'). Without access to the event's raw outputs or an explicit synthesis method, the claimed community consensus cannot be distinguished from author selection. This is load-bearing for the paper's central claim and needs to be addressed, e.g., by adding a methodology/appendix and by softening or carefully qualifying the generalization statements.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 4.6] The quantitative claims 'currently, 3 million' papers published per year and 'more than 200 million' papers already published are stated without any citation in both Section 1 and Section 4.6. These numbers are presented as context for the research question, and while they are plausible, they should be supported by an authoritative source (e.g., a bibliometric database or STM report) or removed/rephrased as approximate estimates.
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 2] The four-category taxonomy (literature discovery, knowledge generation, peer review, slide presentation) is asserted as 'roughly classified' without validation. It is unclear whether this taxonomy emerged from the Bridge event discussions or is the authors' own framing. In particular, the inclusion of 'slide presentation' as a top-level category alongside much broader categories seems idiosyncratic and needs justification. The authors should clarify the provenance of the taxonomy and discuss whether the categories are intended to be exhaustive and how they were derived.
  4. [Section 5] The conclusion presents the event outcomes as if they were field-level results, e.g., 'AI is profoundly reshaping the scholarly landscape' and lists of 'shared challenges' and 'future directions.' Given the undocumented convenience sample described in Section 1, these statements overreach. The authors should either provide evidence of representativeness or explicitly frame the findings as 'challenges and directions identified by participants at the AI4SC Bridge event' rather than as community-wide conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 3] The text and figure caption refer to 'five-start ethics'; this should be 'five-star ethics' throughout.
  2. [Section 3.1.6] There is a typo: 'impact onc85 SDGs' should be 'impact on SDGs'.
  3. [References] References [63] and [64] are the same paper (Linked Open Literature Review using the ORKG); one should be removed. Also, reference [65] is cited twice in Section 3.1.2 as '[65, 65]'.
  4. [Section 2.1.3] The phrase 'for knowledge scholarly knowledge organization' is garbled; it should read 'for scholarly knowledge organization'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; self-citations are illustrative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This manuscript is a qualitative report of the AAAI 2025 AI4SC Bridge event. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, or falsifiable predictions, so none of the mathematical circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation) apply. The closest potential issue is the repeated citation of the authors' own ORKG work (e.g., [8], [63], [66]) when describing scholarly knowledge graphs and the 'ORKG observatory'. These citations are used as examples of existing systems, not as evidence that the paper's central conclusions—shared challenges, future directions, the value of cross-disciplinary dialogue—are true. The central claim is an interpretation of event discussions; even if one questions whether the participant sample is representative, that is a methodological and generalizability limitation, not a circular reduction to the paper's inputs. Because the event's synthesis is not independently checkable, the evidentiary status is weak, but circularity requires the conclusion to be equivalent to the premise by construction or via a self-citation chain. No such equivalence is exhibited, so the score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It rests on the representativeness of the AAAI 2025 AI4SC Bridge event and on the completeness of its self-devised taxonomy.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The AAAI 2025 AI4SC Bridge event participants and world café discussions are representative of the broader scholarly AI community.
    The paper generalizes 'shared challenges' and 'future directions' from this event to the whole community (Sections 1 and 5), without sampling or evidence that non-attendees hold similar views.
  • ad hoc to paper The proposed four-category classification of AI systems (literature search/discovery, knowledge generation, peer review, slide presentation) is exhaustive and useful.
    Section 2 asserts this taxonomy without a systematic literature review or comparison to existing taxonomies, so it is introduced for this paper's structure.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charting the Future of Scholarly Knowledge with AI: A Community Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUFPYN4I

@misc{pith2026250902581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charting the Future of Scholarly Knowledge with AI: A Community Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUFPYN4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02581}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Despite the growing availability of tools designed to support scholarly knowledge extraction and organization, many researchers still rely on manual methods, sometimes due to unfamiliarity with existing technologies or limited access to domain-adapted solutions. Meanwhile, the rapid increase in scholarly publications across disciplines has made it increasingly difficult to stay current, further underscoring the need for scalable, AI-enabled approaches to structuring and synthesizing scholarly knowledge. Various research communities have begun addressing this challenge independently, developing tools and frameworks aimed at building reliable, dynamic, and queryable scholarly knowledge bases. However, limited interaction across these communities has hindered the exchange of methods, models, and best practices, slowing progress toward more integrated solutions. This manuscript identifies ways to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue, identify shared challenges, categorize new collaboration and shape future research directions in scholarly knowledge and organization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02581 by Allard Oelen, Anmol Saini, Anna M. Jacyszyn, Antrea Christou, Azanzi Jiomekong, Claudia Biniossek, Dirk Betz, Enayat Rajabi, Gollam Rabby, Hande K\"u\c{c}\"uk McGinty, Hannah Kim, Harry McElroy, Janice Anta Zebaze, Keith G. Mills, Sanju Tiwari, S\"oren Auer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the research life cycle. For a given problem, scientists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Holistic view of the classification of artificial intelligence for scholarly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the five stars ethics on AI for scholarly communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    ACM: Artifact review and badging - current (August 2020), https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/ artifact-review-and-badging-current , [Online; posted 24-August- 2020]

    2020

  2. [2]

    In: Advances in sustainable materials and resilient infrastructure, pp

    Addagada, L., Ramesh, S.T., Ratha, D.N., Gandhimathi, R., Rout, P.R.: The role of civil engineering in achieving un sustainable development goals. In: Advances in sustainable materials and resilient infrastructure, pp. 373–

  3. [3]

    In: E3S Web of Conferences

    Alazzai, W.K., Abood, B.S.Z., Al-Jawahry, H.M., Obaid, M.K.: Precision farming: the power of ai and iot technologies. In: E3S Web of Conferences. vol. 491, p. 04006. EDP Sciences (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    quality education

    AlSagri, H.S., Sohail, S.S.: Evaluating the role of artificial intelligence in sustainable development goals with an emphasis on “quality education”. Discover Sustainability 5(1), 1–26 (2024) 28

    2024

  5. [5]

    IEEE Jour- nal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 18(4), 1261–1271 (2014)

    Anthimopoulos, M.M., Gianola, L., Scarnato, L., Diem, P., Mougiakakou, S.G.: A food recognition system for diabetic pa- tients based on an optimized bag-of-features model. IEEE Jour- nal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 18(4), 1261–1271 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2014.2308928

    work page arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3923923 (September 2015), a/RES/70/1

    Assembly, U.N.G.: Transforming our world : the 2030 agenda for sus- tainable development: resolution / adopted by the general assembly. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3923923 (September 2015), a/RES/70/1

    work page arXiv 2030

  7. [7]

    In: Handbook on Neurosymbolic AI and Knowledge Graphs, pp

    Auer, S., D’Souza, J., Farfar, K.E., Jaradeh, M.Y., Jiomekong, A., Karras, O., Oelen, A., Snyder, L., Stocker, M., Vogt, L.: Open research knowledge graph: a large-scale neuro-symbolic knowledge organization system. In: Handbook on Neurosymbolic AI and Knowledge Graphs, pp. 385–420. IOS Press (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    BIBLIOTHEK – Forschung und Praxis (2020)

    Auer, S., Oelen, A., Haris, M., Stocker, M., D’Souza, J., Eddine Farfar, K., Vogt, L., Prinz, M., Wiens, V., Jaradeh, M.Y.: Improving access to scientific literature with knowledge graphs. BIBLIOTHEK – Forschung und Praxis (2020). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18452/22049

    work page doi:10.18452/22049 2020

  9. [9]

    Ieee Access 7, 9324–9339 (2019)

    Bai, X., Wang, M., Lee, I., Yang, Z., Kong, X., Xia, F.: Scientific paper recommendation: A survey. Ieee Access 7, 9324–9339 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 39(5), 6222–6234 (2024)

    Bai, Y., Camal, S., Michiorri, A.: News and load: A quantitative ex- ploration of natural language processing applications for forecasting day- ahead electricity system demand. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 39(5), 6222–6234 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    European Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 6(5), 1–9 (2022)

    Bakr, M., Abdel-Gaber, S., Nasr, M., Hazman, M.: Densenet based model for plant diseases diagnosis. European Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 6(5), 1–9 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 27(2), 96–106 (2020)

    Bali Swain, R., Yang-Wallentin, F.: Achieving sustainable development goals: predicaments and strategies. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 27(2), 96–106 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05746 (2024)

    Banerjee, S., Agarwal, A., Singla, S.: Llms will always hallucinate, and we need to live with this. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05746 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023 (2023)

    Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., et al.: A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Natural Language Engineering 28(6), 683–732 (2022) 29

    Baradaran, R., Ghiasi, R., Amirkhani, H.: A survey on machine reading comprehension systems. Natural Language Engineering 28(6), 683–732 (2022) 29

    2022

  16. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676 (2019)

    Beltagy, I., Lo, K., Cohan, A.: Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  17. [17]

    BMC medical research methodology 25(1), 75 (2025)

    Bernard, N., Sagawa Jr, Y., Bier, N., Lihoreau, T., Pazart, L., Tannou, T.: Using artificial intelligence for systematic review: the example of elicit. BMC medical research methodology 25(1), 75 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    In: 2015 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    Bettadapura, V., Thomaz, E., Parnami, A., Abowd, G.D., Essa, I.: Lever- aging context to support automated food recognition in restaurants. In: 2015 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 580–587. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., Liang, P., Vaughn, J.W.: Introducing the neurips 2021 paper check- list (March 2021), https://neuripsconf.medium.com/ introducing-the-neurips-2021-paper-checklist-3220d6df500b , [Online; posted 26-March-2021]

    2021

  20. [20]

    org/abs/2402.08565

    Bolanos, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., Motta, E.: Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: Opportunities and challenges (2024), https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.08565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Li- braries

    Brack, A., Hoppe, A., Buscherm¨ ohle, P., Ewerth, R.: Cross-domain multi- task learning for sequential sentence classification in research papers. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Li- braries. pp. 1–13 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    In: International Con- ference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries

    Brack, A., Hoppe, A., Stocker, M., Auer, S., Ewerth, R.: Requirements analysis for an open research knowledge graph. In: International Con- ference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. pp. 3–18. Springer (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Brack, A., Hoppe, A., Stocker, M., Auer, S., Ewerth, R.: Analysing the requirements for an open research knowledge graph: Use cases, quality requirements, and construction strategies. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 23(1), 33–55 (mar 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-021-00306-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00799-021-00306-x 2022

  24. [24]

    In: 2022 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES)

    Brintha, N.C., Nagaraj, P., Tejasri, A., Durga, B.V., Teja, M.T., Venkata Pavan Kumar, M.N.: A food recommendation system for predictive dia- betic patients using ann and cnn. In: 2022 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES). pp. 1364–1371 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCES54183.2022.9835808

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    The American Economist 69(1), 80– 87 (2024)

    Buchanan, J., Hill, S., Shapoval, O.: Chatgpt hallucinates non-existent citations: Evidence from economics. The American Economist 69(1), 80– 87 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/05694345231218454

    work page doi:10.1177/05694345231218454 2024

  26. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIG- PLAN/SIGBED International Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems

    Cai, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, L.: Optimus: towards optimal layer-fusion on deep learning processors. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIG- PLAN/SIGBED International Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems. pp. 67–79 (2021) 30

    2021

  27. [27]

    Semantic Web 4(3), 341–348 (2013)

    Caracciolo, C., Stellato, A., Morshed, A., Johannsen, G., Rajbhandari, S., Jaques, Y., Keizer, J.: The agrovoc linked dataset. Semantic Web 4(3), 341–348 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 103(1), 63 (2015)

    Champieux, R.: Plumx. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 103(1), 63 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    J Med Internet Res 26, e53164 (May 2024)

    Chelli, M., Descamps, J., Lavou´ e, V., Trojani, C., Azar, M., Deckert, M., Raynier, J.L., Clowez, G., Boileau, P., Ruetsch-Chelli, C.: Hallucina- tion rates and reference accuracy of chatgpt and bard for systematic re- views: Comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res 26, e53164 (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.2196/53164

    doi:10.2196/53164 2024

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15465 (2025)

    Chen, R., Mills, K.G., Niu, D.: Fp4dit: Towards effective floating point quantization for diffusion transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15465 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM international confer- ence on web search and data mining

    Chen, Y., Subburathinam, A., Chen, C.H., Zaki, M.J.: Personalized food recommendation as constrained question answering over a large-scale food knowledge graph. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM international confer- ence on web search and data mining. pp. 544–552 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    The Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 44(2), 43 (2023)

    Cole, V., Boutet, M.: Researchrabbit. The Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 44(2), 43 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    CSPaper: Icml 2025 position paper: Why ai peer review is crumbling and what we can do about it (May 2025), https://cspaper.org/topic/75/ icml-2025-position-paper-why-ai-peer-review-is-crumbling-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/ 2

    2025

  34. [34]

    Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 35(4), 373– 388 (2020)

    Deng, J., Lu, Y., Lee, V.C.S.: Concrete crack detection with handwrit- ing script interferences using faster region-based convolutional neural net- work. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 35(4), 373– 388 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2022: 21st In- ternational Semantic Web Conference, Virtual Event, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings

    Dess ´ ı, D., Osborne, F., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Buscaldi, D., Motta, E.: Cs-kg: A large-scale knowledge graph of research entities and claims in computer science. In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2022: 21st In- ternational Semantic Web Conference, Virtual Event, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings. p. 678–696. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2022). https...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19433-7 2022

  36. [36]

    BMJ open 13(7), e072254 (2023)

    van Dijk, S.H., Brusse-Keizer, M.G., Bucs´ an, C.C., van der Palen, J., Doggen, C.J., Lenferink, A.: Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used. BMJ open 13(7), e072254 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 55, 100715 (2024) 31

    Dong, M.M., Stratopoulos, T.C., Wang, V.X.: A scoping review of chatgpt research in accounting and finance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 55, 100715 (2024) 31

    2024

  38. [38]

    npj Science of Food 2(1), 23 (2018)

    Dooley, D.M., Griffiths, E.J., Gosal, G.S., Buttigieg, P.L., Hoehndorf, R., Lange, M.C., Schriml, L.M., Brinkman, F.S., Hsiao, W.W.: Foodon: a harmonized food ontology to increase global food traceability, quality control and data integration. npj Science of Food 2(1), 23 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., et al.: The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Journal of King Saud University-Science 36(9), 103409 (2024)

    Durgun, Y.: Real-time water quality monitoring using ai-enabled sensors: Detection of contaminants and uv disinfection analysis in smart urban water systems. Journal of King Saud University-Science 36(9), 103409 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    In: International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries

    D’Souza, J., Auer, S.: Computer science named entity recognition in the open research knowledge graph. In: International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries. pp. 35–45. Springer (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Eger, S., Cao, Y., D’Souza, J., Geiger, A., Greisinger, C., Gross, S., Hou, Y., Krenn, B., Lauscher, A., Li, Y., Lin, C., Moosavi, N.S., Zhao, W., Miller, T.: Transforming science with large language models: A survey on ai-assisted scientific discovery, experimentation, content generation, and evaluation (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05151

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2245683

    Enqvist, L.: ‘human oversight’ in the eu artificial intelligence act: what, when and by whom? Law, Innovation and Technology 15(2), 508–535 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2245683

    arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Semantic web 1(1-2), 89–96 (2010)

    Fazzinga, B., Lukasiewicz, T.: Semantic search on the web. Semantic web 1(1-2), 89–96 (2010)

    2010

  45. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22167 (2025)

    Feng, W., Yang, C., Qin, H., Li, X., Wang, Y., An, Z., Huang, L., Diao, B., Zhao, Z., Xu, Y., et al.: Q-vdit: Towards accurate quantization and distillation of video-generation diffusion transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22167 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 23(3), 157–214 (2016)

    Fisher, I.E., Garnsey, M.R., Hughes, M.E.: Natural language processing in accounting, auditing and finance: A synthesis of the literature with a roadmap for future research. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 23(3), 157–214 (2016)

    2016

  47. [47]

    Smart Mate- rials and Structures 29(7), 074001 (2020)

    Fu, J., Lai, J., Yang, Z., Bai, J., Yu, M.: Fuzzy-neural network control for a magnetorheological elastomer vibration isolation system. Smart Mate- rials and Structures 29(7), 074001 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07640 (2018) 32

    Gardner, M., Grus, J., Neumann, M., Tafjord, O., Dasigi, P., Liu, N., Peters, M., Schmitz, M., Zettlemoyer, L.: Allennlp: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07640 (2018) 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20325 (2025)

    Ghasemabadi, A., Mills, K.G., Li, B., Niu, D.: Guided by gut: Effi- cient test-time scaling with reinforced intrinsic confidence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20325 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18864 (2025)

    Gottweis, J., Weng, W.H., Daryin, A., Tu, T., Palepu, A., Sirkovic, P., Myaskovsky, A., Weissenberger, F., Rong, K., Tanno, R., et al.: Towards an ai co-scientist. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18864 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Engineering Structures 143, 152–168 (2017)

    Greco, A., Cannizzaro, F., Pluchino, A.: Seismic collapse prediction of frame structures by means of genetic algorithms. Engineering Structures 143, 152–168 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    Greiner-Petter, A.: Semantification of Mathematical LaTeX, pp. 57–93. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40473-4 3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-40473-4 2023

  53. [53]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web

    Guha, R., McCool, R., Miller, E.: Semantic search. In: Proceed- ings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web. p. 700–709. WWW ’03, Association for Computing Machinery (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/775152.775250

    work page arXiv 2003

  54. [54]

    BMC Medical Education 22(1), 830 (2022)

    Han, J.W., Park, J., Lee, H.: Analysis of the effect of an artificial intel- ligence chatbot educational program on non-face-to-face classes: a quasi- experimental study. BMC Medical Education 22(1), 830 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    A Feed the Future Global Supporting Seed Systems for Devel- opment activity report (2023)

    Hassena, M., Alemu, D., Dey, B.: Quality declared seed mechanism in ethiopia. A Feed the Future Global Supporting Seed Systems for Devel- opment activity report (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    In: International Semantic Web Conference

    Haussmann, S., Seneviratne, O., Chen, Y., Ne’eman, Y., Codella, J., Chen, C.H., McGuinness, D.L., Zaki, M.J.: Foodkg: a semantics-driven knowledge graph for food recommendation. In: International Semantic Web Conference. pp. 146–162. Springer (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Journal of Docu- mentation 81(7), 18–30 (2024)

    Heikkil¨ a, J.T.: Human intelligence versus artificial intelligence in classi- fying economics research articles: exploratory evidence. Journal of Docu- mentation 81(7), 18–30 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Ileri, A.M., Rangarajan, N., Cannell, J., McGinty, H.: Vel: A formally verified reasoner for el++ description logic (2024), https://arxiv.org/ abs/2412.08739

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Cureus 16(3) (2024)

    Jhajj, K.S., Jindal, P., Kaur, K.: Use of artificial intelligence tools for research by medical students: a narrative review. Cureus 16(3) (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 57(1), e303 (2020) 33

    Jiang, M., D’Souza, J., Auer, S., Downie, J.S.: Targeting precision: A hybrid scientific relation extraction pipeline for improved scholarly knowl- edge organization. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 57(1), e303 (2020) 33

    2020

  61. [61]

    https://orkg.org/review/R640411 (2022), [Online; accessed 2023-09- 16]

    Jiomekong, A.: Food information processing. https://orkg.org/review/R640411 (2022), [Online; accessed 2023-09- 16]

    2022

  62. [62]

    https://orkg.org/review/R609854 (2023)

    Jiomekong, A.: Collecting food informa- tion. https://orkg.org/review/R609854 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48366/r609854, [Online; accessed 2023-09-16]

    work page doi:10.48366/r609854 2023

  63. [64]

    In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024

    Jiomekong, A., Auer, S., Oelen, A.: Linked open literature re- view using the neuro-symbolic open research knowledge graph. In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. p. 1015–1018. WWW ’24, Association for Computing Machinery (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3589335.3651238

    arXiv 2024

  64. [65]

    Jiomekong, A., Oelen, A., Auer, S., Anna-Lena, L., Lars, V.: Food information engineering. AI Mag. 45(3), 338–353 (Sep 2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12185

    work page doi:10.1002/aaai.12185 2024

  65. [66]

    The Electronic Library (2024)

    Jiomekong, A., Tiwari, S.: An approach based on open research knowledge graph for knowledge acquisition from scientific papers. The Electronic Library (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2023-0154

    work page doi:10.1108/el-06-2023-0154 2024

  66. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12039 (2023)

    Katz, D.M., Hartung, D., Gerlach, L., Jana, A., Bommarito II, M.J.: Natural language processing in the legal domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12039 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [68]

    Digital Health 7, 20552076211038151 (2021)

    Kaur, A., Singh, S., Chandan, J.S., Robbins, T., Patel, V.: Qualitative exploration of digital chatbot use in medical education: A pilot study. Digital Health 7, 20552076211038151 (2021)

    2021

  68. [69]

    A Survey on Food Ingredient Substitutions

    Kim, H., Venkataramanan, R., Sheth, A.: A survey on food ingredient substitutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01958 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    org/abs/2301.10140

    Kinney, R., Anastasiades, C., Authur, R., Beltagy, I., Bragg, J., Bu- raczynski, A., Cachola, I., Candra, S., Chandrasekhar, Y., Cohan, A., et al.: The semantic scholar open data platform (2025), https://arxiv. org/abs/2301.10140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    In: European Semantic Web Conference

    Kolchin, M., Chistyakov, A., Lapaev, M., Khaydarova, R.: Foodpedia: Russian food products as a linked data dataset. In: European Semantic Web Conference. pp. 87–90. Springer (2015) 34

    2015

  71. [72]

    Science of The Total Environment 906, 167705 (2024)

    Konya, A., Nematzadeh, P.: Recent applications of ai to environmental disciplines: A review. Science of The Total Environment 906, 167705 (2024)

    2024

  72. [73]

    Journal of Economic Literature 61(4), 1281–1317 (2023)

    Korinek, A.: Generative ai for economic research: Use cases and impli- cations for economists. Journal of Economic Literature 61(4), 1281–1317 (2023)

    2023

  73. [74]

    Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics220, 104860 (2022)

    Lin, P., Ding, F., Hu, G., Li, C., Xiao, Y., Tse, K.T., Kwok, K., Kareem, A.: Machine learning-enabled estimation of crosswind load effect on tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics220, 104860 (2022)

    2022

  74. [75]

    Lira, B., Rogers, T., Goldstein, D.G., Ungar, L., Duckworth, A.L.: Learn- ing not cheating: Ai assistance can enhance rather than hinder skill de- velopment (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02880

    arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 (2024)

    Liu, A., Feng, B., Xue, B., Wang, B., Wu, B., Lu, C., Zhao, C., Deng, C., Zhang, C., Ruan, C., et al.: Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [77]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30, 2003–2015 (2021)

    Liu, X., Min, W., Mei, S., Wang, L., Jiang, S.: Plant disease recognition: A large-scale benchmark dataset and a visual region and loss reweighting approach. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30, 2003–2015 (2021)

    2003

  77. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292 (2024)

    Lu, C., Lu, C., Lange, R.T., Foerster, J., Clune, J., Ha, D.: The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [79]

    NY Litigator 28(2), 8–12 (2023)

    Lyon, C.F.: Fake cases, real consequences: misuse of chatgpt leads to sanctions. NY Litigator 28(2), 8–12 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [80]

    Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain pp

    Magnusson Sj¨ oberg, C.: Legal automation: Ai and law revisited. Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain pp. 173–187 (2019)

    work page 2019

  80. [81]

    In: 2024 IEEE conference on artificial intelligence (CAI)

    Maleki, N., Padmanabhan, B., Dutta, K.: Ai hallucinations: a misnomer worth clarifying. In: 2024 IEEE conference on artificial intelligence (CAI). pp. 133–138. IEEE (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.