The archive provides Chinese and English research texts. Translations may be AI-assisted and may not yet have received independent human review. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
Research is ongoing; collected events do not constitute a complete case history.
View full image ↗Opening page of the source document associated with “Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy?”. Original page layout retained; follow the source for the full text.
Image source: Paul G. Schmidt / Amnon J. Meir; arXiv; rights remain with the original rights holders.
Source · Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy? ↗The start date is only the earliest event collected in this batch; it does not assert that the controversy began that day.
Case chronology
Authors report sending an open letter
Schmidt and Meir report sending an open letter to the leadership of SIAM, AMS and NSF-MPS, later expanded into an article.
Research question
Examines verification and reviewing labour in mathematicians’ governance demands.
Related documents
DOC-0366Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy?DOC-0367Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy? — abstract and submission historySources
Paul G. Schmidt / Amnon J. Meir; arXiv · EN · Date unknown
Cite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “AI integrity in mathematical publishing.” case-0186. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.