ChatGPT and other generative AI applications have once again cast the spotlight on AI and its purpose in academic research. Heralded by some as the ultimate time-saver and means to ease administrative burdens, its reception in academic circles varies. How much do researchers actually know about this technology and how it works? Critical voices express reservations about the potential negative implications AI has on the integrity of research as well as cite the potential harmful practices related to the dissemination of bias and inaccurate information. This debate surrounding the involvement of AI in research is fervent among academics, policymakers and legal experts, centering on the question: What role should AI have in the research process?

Academia – we would like to imagine, is a place where collaboration outweighs competition, recognition is tied only to merit and resources are equally distributed. However, we know in reality that the playing field is not equal for all participants and a select few often possess more power and privilege than others. This power imbalance does not only promote egocentric practices, inequalities and hierarchies, but also diminishes opportunities for innovation and good scientific practice, as well as increases the likelihood of mental health issues.

Why do you need one author to write a scientific paper in philosophy and up to 5,154 for one physics? How far better must philosophers be in typewriting if they manage to the job of over 5,000 physicists? As of 1 June 2017 we start this blog by looking at the use of authorship in scholarly publishing. How is authorship spelled in different scientific disciplines? How did evolve in the last years? What do you, as a scientist, need to contribute to a scientific project, to call yourself an author of a respective publication? We analysed a bibliographic data base with more than with more than 22000 peer-reviewed journals and in 27 subject areas to answer these questions. Now we want to share our results.

The scientific community has recently experienced instances of scientific fraud and misconduct. Issues with the replicability of research pose the question if science needs a new oath for ethics and research integrity. Although there are codices of good scientific practice and systems that should control them, they seem to be insufficient. Does academia need to readjust its ethical principles for research in an increasingly digital and intertwined world? How do we protect quality and reputation of science in times of scepticism towards the scientific authority? We want to reflect and discuss ethics in science. Share your thoughts about the role of existing and alternative codes of conduct. What should the ideal codices comprise? How should they be controlled? Does digitalization essentially change the concept of integrity in science and research?

Societal challenges like migration movements, climate change, or digitization show that there is a pressing need for informed expertise from virtually all fields of research. Yet, scientific knowledge often remains within its domain and reaches civil society only indirectly and delayed. In a 5-year citation window, 27% of the papers from natural sciences and 32% of the papers from social sciences remain uncited.

Expressed pointedly: While the need for scientific expertise is perhaps greater than ever, scientists produce papers that nobody reads. Moreover, neologisms like “alternative facts” suggest a noticeable loss of the scientific authority in the public opinion. All this raises a difficult question: What is the impact of science? In the next couple of weeks we will address this issue in more detail.