Adam Grant

Helpful meta-analysis on what kinds of prompts are associated with improved learning in digital learning environments. Prompts tailored to participants and triggered by user actions, rather than being generic and/or time-triggered, were most effective. https://lnkd.in/evr8yZRh

96

5 Comments

🚨 Three Major AI Executive Orders Just Announced (July 23, 2025) that could reshape America’s approach to artificial intelligence: 1. “Preventing Woke AI” ⚖️ – Requires federal agencies to use AI tools certified as truth-seeking and ideologically neutral. 2. “Accelerating Data-Center Infrastructure” ⚡️ – Streamlines approvals for massive (≥100 MW) data-center construction to rapidly expand U.S. computing power. 3. “Promoting AI Technology Exports” 🌎 – Creates new funding channels to help U.S. companies export complete AI technology packages internationally. 📚🎓 What I think this means for libraries and higher ed: Upsides ✅ • The clearer guidance on AI #compliance could give libraries and universities an opportunity to define leadership roles around audits, documentation, and literacy programs. • New funding and partnership opportunities tied to rapid data-center growth, especially in workforce development and community engagement. Concerns ⚠️ • I’m concerned the new federal definition of “#neutrality” might unintentionally limit the intellectual freedom and openness that libraries fundamentally represent. • #Researchers exploring AI bias or societal impact may find their work complicated by narrower compliance standards. • Fast-tracking large-scale infrastructure development raises legitimate questions about potential impacts on local communities and #environments. 💡 My Perspective These EOs clearly prioritize innovation speed and global competitiveness. But rather than framing this moment as a simplistic choice between growth and caution, I see an opportunity and responsibility for librarians and higher-ed leaders to thoughtfully shape what comes next. We should actively engage in how neutrality is defined and operationalized, to safeguard our institutional values.

65

4 Comments

As Editor-in-Chief, one of the challenging tasks is managing authors' expectations (and frustrations). I receive numerous emails, often angry, from authors dissatisfied with reviewers' comments or final decisions. Despite the peer review process relying on the volunteer efforts of reviewers, who are not paid to evaluate papers, authors still expect a fast peer review process. Unfortunately, this is not always possible due to the difficulty in finding available experts to review manuscripts. We are indeed facing significant challenges in peer review because of the growing number of submissions and the declining availability of qualified referees. Here are some extracts from unhappy authors emails.   - Example 1: “Please ask your handling editor if he can reduce the revisions or provide some more time. If it is not possible, please let me know and withdraw the paper from your journal so that we can give it to a springer journal. Very bad experience with Wiley especially with your journal.” - Example 2: “I am little worried about the timeline. Please do the needful. Please, don't complicate the matters and waste time.” - Example 3: “One of the worst journals and editorial staff I have ever seen. I regret why I submitted my article to this journal. If your editor is unable to process this article in this month, I think I will rather prefer to withdraw my article as there seems to be no reason for waiting years for unnecessary delays.” I understand that sometimes papers undergo unnecessarily lengthy peer review processes, and some authors need to publish their work quickly due to tight deadlines for graduation or promotion. However, there are several reasons why peer review might be delayed, for instance when seeking additional reviewers in case: (1) original referees not submitting their reports after initially agreeing to do so, (2) original referees submitting scant reports, listing superficial, unhelpful, or even irrelevant comments and suggestions, (3) original referees submitting AI-generated unhelpful or fake reviews, or (4) compromised peer review when the original referees do not declare their conflict of interest. Overall, we need to keep in mind that scholarly communication is still relying on a peer review process that is known to be slow, expensive, inconsistent, and biased, and editors do not always have the tools to guarantee both rigor and speed in peer review. So, before sending an angry email to an editor, please take a moment to reconsider your judgments and be kind. Editors are here to assist authors, and working together is always more productive than starting a blame game. #research #scholarlycommunication #peerreview #editors #referees #authors #publication #khalifauniversity #wiley

25

3 Comments