Will anyone review this paper? Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review
Carl T. Bergstrom and Kevin Gross
AI, peer review and the human activity of science
Carl T. Bergstrom and Joe Bak-Coleman
Trump’s new ‘gold standard’ rule will destroy American science as we know it
Colette Delawalla, Victor Ambros, et al.
How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science?
Marcel Binz, Stephan Alaniz, et al.
The replication crisis is not a crisis of false positives
Joe Bak-Coleman, Richard Mann, et al.
Rationalizing risk aversion in science
Kevin Gross and Carl T. Bergstrom
Letter to the Editor: Applying D.E.I. to Science
Carl T. Bergstrom
Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape
Y. Samuel Wang, Carol Lee, et al.
To Fight Misinformation, We Need to Teach That Science Is Dynamic
Carl T. Bergstrom, Daniel R. Pimental, et al.
A High-Speed Scientific Hive Mind Emerged from the COVID Pandemic
Carl T. Bergstrom and Joe Bak-Coleman
Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it
Kevin Gross and Carl T. Bergstrom
Why Scientists Chase Big Problems: Individual Strategy and Social Optimality
Carl T. Bergstrom, Jacob G. Foster, and Yangbo Song
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions
Kevin Gross and Carl T. Bergstrom
Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time
Molly M. King, Carl T. Bergstrom, et al.
Publication bias and the canonization of false facts
Silas Boye Nissen, Tali Magidan et al.
You lookin' at me?
Carl T. Bergstrom, Brian Wasik, et al.
Finding cultural holes: How structure and culture diverge in networks of scholarly communication
Daril Vilhena, Jacob G. Foster, et al.
The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship
Jevin D. West, Jennifer Jacquet, et al.
