With the right metrics, incentives, and tools, researchers could theoretically publish on their own. A paper drafted as described above could be cross-referenced across databases of papers and researchers to find related papers and researchers. This could not only help with writing and collaboration but also review and publication. Indeed, it should be possible that as you write the paper you're automatically told if others are working on a similar idea (possible collaborator) and when complete who would be good to review it. Tools for matching documents with reviewers, like
JANE, already exist. Editors use such tools to identify and invite reviewers, an arduous process involving many back and forth emails. What if instead of having a human arrange these "dates" we used AI? Amy and Andrew, AI-based assistants developed by
x.ai, are in use already by many people to schedule and reschedule meetings all the time. Why
shouldn't it be used to arrange peer review? A system that matches, invites, and rewards reviewers could then be developed, dramatically cutting costs. Want a review? Leave a review? Thus, we could build a world where researchers are in control, incentives are aligned with science, costs are dramatically cut, and things are done quickly and openly.