Nice! I confess that I didn't even look.

Ha. I'll do the special dance.

That sure is pretty.

Hard agree. Even for you astro weirdos. ;)

Well me and my indie friends would've killed A.I. with a withering stare through our asymmetric fringes, I can tell you that much.

Inspector Smile is ready for science! 🫡 This is Smile’s first ultraviolet view showing an auroral substorm. With the ultraviolet camera now operational, Smile becomes the first spacecraft since 2008 to capture the full ring of northern lights around the north pole in ultraviolet light. 🔭 🧪 ☀️

If you could just point to one, single bit of evidence in the manuscript to support that, that's your whole review done and you've helped an editor enormously.

I can well image, yes. At least with grants there's normally some "demand management" process already in place. E.g. each eligible PI is allowed one application per year. If they want to use that for AI slop, that's there loss. There are no such limits, or even "eligible submitters", for journals.

Yes, but rules without policing are pointless. And policing is getting increasingly difficult.

Hey - I do it too with increasingly regularity. We have to. There's simply too much to do.

Sure. It's like the US visa application form that asks if you intend to participate in covert espionage.

How do you tell? Without significant human effort.

Yep, 100% agree. And that workload is likely hitting editors even more than reviewers as we try to do more in-depth pre-reviewing reading and filtering. The system is near collapse in its current form, I think.

As editor for one journal manuscript, I've had 14 review rejections. And as many again just not reply. Only 4 suggested alternate reviewers. 2 years back, I'd need to ask 2 or 3 people tops. This is not a criticism of my colleagues - it's an indirect measure of rising academic workloads.

Turns out that they were all Grant Schapps.