Small Is Sexy: Rethinking Article Length in the Age of AI

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Learned Publishing Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1002/leap.1659
Yana Suchikova, Anastasia Popova, Hanna Lopatina, Natalia Tsybuliak
{"title":"Small Is Sexy: Rethinking Article Length in the Age of AI","authors":"Yana Suchikova,&nbsp;Anastasia Popova,&nbsp;Hanna Lopatina,&nbsp;Natalia Tsybuliak","doi":"10.1002/leap.1659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With the emergence of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, the scholarly community faces a growing question: Are lengthy articles still the best way to communicate research? Recently, Pividori (<span>2024</span>) highlighted the ability of AI tools to generate large volumes of text quickly, prompting reflection on whether long articles truly advance scientific progress. As we move further into the AI era, should we instead focus on brevity and clarity?</p><p>This article is an opinion piece that reflects on the evolving challenges in academic publishing, particularly in the context of the increasing role of AI tools like LLMs. We aim to provoke thought and inspire action towards adopting concise and impactful scientific reporting in response to the growing issue of information overload in the research community. This piece deliberately reflects on the ethical, environmental, and academic implications of publishing in the AI era. It does not claim to present empirical findings but rather serves as a reaction to current developments and an argument for rethinking traditional publishing practices in favour of clarity, efficiency, and sustainability.</p><p>The current scientific information landscape is overwhelming. Jinha (<span>2010</span>) estimated that since the 17th century, over 50 million scientific papers have been published, with more than 2.5 million new papers added annually. This flood of content makes it nearly impossible for researchers to stay fully informed, even within their fields. Lengthy papers, often filled with excessive detail, contribute to this overload, demanding more time and cognitive resources from readers.</p><p>In today's fast-paced research environment, efficiency and clarity are critical. Adopting a ‘small is sexy’ approach, inspired by Hill's TED talk ‘Less Stuff, More Happiness’ (Hill <span>2011</span>), could improve the quality of academic writing. Reducing verbosity allows more focused, impactful research findings to shine without being buried under unnecessary information. This shift can lead to better comprehension and faster dissemination of critical insights.</p><p>Some may counter our argument, claiming that detailed methodologies and large datasets are essential for reproducibility and understanding. While this is true, balancing necessary detail with conciseness is possible. One solution is to include Supporting Information or external repositories for exhaustive datasets and methodological specifics. By placing such information in accessible repositories like Zenodo or Dryad, researchers can ensure the integrity of their work without overloading the main text.</p><p>This approach has multiple benefits. It simplifies reading, enhances transparency, and promotes open science. Researchers can focus on interpreting results and discussing their significance rather than getting bogged down in exhaustive descriptions. It also facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration, making research more accessible to those outside the immediate field who may not need every technical detail but are interested in broader findings.</p><p>For publishers, supporting repositories not only helps reduce the length of articles but also improves the reproducibility and impact of research. By integrating supplementary datasets into publications, journals can offer a more streamlined reading experience while ensuring that all necessary information is available for those who require it.</p><p>The ethical implications of using AI in scientific writing further support the case for brevity. Moffatt and Hall (<span>2024</span>) express concerns about AI's inability to take responsibility for intellectual contributions. If AI can generate long, seemingly impressive texts without truly understanding the content, relying on such tools to inflate article length undermines the integrity of scientific communication. Instead, AI should assist in processing and synthesising information, helping researchers distil key insights rather than producing lengthy, unfocused documents.</p><p>Furthermore, long articles have environmental costs. Producing, distributing, and digitally storing large texts consumes energy and resources. According to The Shift Project (<span>2019</span>), digital technologies account for about 4% of global carbon emissions, which is expected to double by 2025. Reducing the length of articles can help decrease data storage demands and energy consumption, aligning scientific publishing with global sustainability goals.</p><p>By embracing concise reports, publishers can contribute to more eco-friendly practices, reducing the carbon footprint of both physical and digital distribution. This aligns with the growing push across industries to meet sustainability targets while improving the efficiency of information sharing.</p><p>The ‘publish or perish’ culture in academia often values quantity over quality, pushing researchers to produce more work, sometimes at the expense of originality. The ease with which AI can generate text may worsen this issue, leading to an influx of lengthy but shallow publications. This overloads the peer review system, as reviewers must sift through additional material that may offer little new insight.</p><p>By shifting towards concise, impactful reports, we can ease the burden on reviewers and improve the quality of academic contributions. Shorter, more focused papers allow reviewers to concentrate on the essential aspects of research, leading to faster turnaround times and more meaningful feedback. In turn, this can improve the quality of the published literature.</p><p>Embracing this shift could also lead to more efficient editorial processes for journals. Fewer, shorter submissions mean less strain on resources and faster publication times, which benefits authors, reviewers, and readers alike.</p><p>Ultimately, this shift towards brevity forces us to reconsider the purpose of scientific writing. Is the goal to impress with volume and complexity or to communicate ideas clearly and effectively? In an era of information overload and limited attention, clarity and conciseness are more valuable than ever. By distilling research to its most impactful elements, we increase its accessibility, influence, and ability to inspire.</p><p>For scholarly publishers, prioritising quality over quantity means promoting research that contributes meaningfully to the field rather than simply adding to the growing mountain of information.</p><p>The rise of AI language models presents an opportunity to rethink how we approach scientific publishing. Long articles may no longer meet the needs of the research community, contributing to information overload, wasted resources, and environmental harm. By adopting a more concise approach, utilising data repositories for Supporting Information, and embracing short reports, we can improve the clarity, efficiency, and sustainability of academic publishing.</p><p>In a world overloaded with information, embracing brevity can make scientific literature more meaningful and accessible, benefiting both researchers and society.</p><p>The authors contributed equally to the conceptual design, literature review, writing, and editing.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1659","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1659","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, the scholarly community faces a growing question: Are lengthy articles still the best way to communicate research? Recently, Pividori (2024) highlighted the ability of AI tools to generate large volumes of text quickly, prompting reflection on whether long articles truly advance scientific progress. As we move further into the AI era, should we instead focus on brevity and clarity?

This article is an opinion piece that reflects on the evolving challenges in academic publishing, particularly in the context of the increasing role of AI tools like LLMs. We aim to provoke thought and inspire action towards adopting concise and impactful scientific reporting in response to the growing issue of information overload in the research community. This piece deliberately reflects on the ethical, environmental, and academic implications of publishing in the AI era. It does not claim to present empirical findings but rather serves as a reaction to current developments and an argument for rethinking traditional publishing practices in favour of clarity, efficiency, and sustainability.

The current scientific information landscape is overwhelming. Jinha (2010) estimated that since the 17th century, over 50 million scientific papers have been published, with more than 2.5 million new papers added annually. This flood of content makes it nearly impossible for researchers to stay fully informed, even within their fields. Lengthy papers, often filled with excessive detail, contribute to this overload, demanding more time and cognitive resources from readers.

In today's fast-paced research environment, efficiency and clarity are critical. Adopting a ‘small is sexy’ approach, inspired by Hill's TED talk ‘Less Stuff, More Happiness’ (Hill 2011), could improve the quality of academic writing. Reducing verbosity allows more focused, impactful research findings to shine without being buried under unnecessary information. This shift can lead to better comprehension and faster dissemination of critical insights.

Some may counter our argument, claiming that detailed methodologies and large datasets are essential for reproducibility and understanding. While this is true, balancing necessary detail with conciseness is possible. One solution is to include Supporting Information or external repositories for exhaustive datasets and methodological specifics. By placing such information in accessible repositories like Zenodo or Dryad, researchers can ensure the integrity of their work without overloading the main text.

This approach has multiple benefits. It simplifies reading, enhances transparency, and promotes open science. Researchers can focus on interpreting results and discussing their significance rather than getting bogged down in exhaustive descriptions. It also facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration, making research more accessible to those outside the immediate field who may not need every technical detail but are interested in broader findings.

For publishers, supporting repositories not only helps reduce the length of articles but also improves the reproducibility and impact of research. By integrating supplementary datasets into publications, journals can offer a more streamlined reading experience while ensuring that all necessary information is available for those who require it.

The ethical implications of using AI in scientific writing further support the case for brevity. Moffatt and Hall (2024) express concerns about AI's inability to take responsibility for intellectual contributions. If AI can generate long, seemingly impressive texts without truly understanding the content, relying on such tools to inflate article length undermines the integrity of scientific communication. Instead, AI should assist in processing and synthesising information, helping researchers distil key insights rather than producing lengthy, unfocused documents.

Furthermore, long articles have environmental costs. Producing, distributing, and digitally storing large texts consumes energy and resources. According to The Shift Project (2019), digital technologies account for about 4% of global carbon emissions, which is expected to double by 2025. Reducing the length of articles can help decrease data storage demands and energy consumption, aligning scientific publishing with global sustainability goals.

By embracing concise reports, publishers can contribute to more eco-friendly practices, reducing the carbon footprint of both physical and digital distribution. This aligns with the growing push across industries to meet sustainability targets while improving the efficiency of information sharing.

The ‘publish or perish’ culture in academia often values quantity over quality, pushing researchers to produce more work, sometimes at the expense of originality. The ease with which AI can generate text may worsen this issue, leading to an influx of lengthy but shallow publications. This overloads the peer review system, as reviewers must sift through additional material that may offer little new insight.

By shifting towards concise, impactful reports, we can ease the burden on reviewers and improve the quality of academic contributions. Shorter, more focused papers allow reviewers to concentrate on the essential aspects of research, leading to faster turnaround times and more meaningful feedback. In turn, this can improve the quality of the published literature.

Embracing this shift could also lead to more efficient editorial processes for journals. Fewer, shorter submissions mean less strain on resources and faster publication times, which benefits authors, reviewers, and readers alike.

Ultimately, this shift towards brevity forces us to reconsider the purpose of scientific writing. Is the goal to impress with volume and complexity or to communicate ideas clearly and effectively? In an era of information overload and limited attention, clarity and conciseness are more valuable than ever. By distilling research to its most impactful elements, we increase its accessibility, influence, and ability to inspire.

For scholarly publishers, prioritising quality over quantity means promoting research that contributes meaningfully to the field rather than simply adding to the growing mountain of information.

The rise of AI language models presents an opportunity to rethink how we approach scientific publishing. Long articles may no longer meet the needs of the research community, contributing to information overload, wasted resources, and environmental harm. By adopting a more concise approach, utilising data repositories for Supporting Information, and embracing short reports, we can improve the clarity, efficiency, and sustainability of academic publishing.

In a world overloaded with information, embracing brevity can make scientific literature more meaningful and accessible, benefiting both researchers and society.

The authors contributed equally to the conceptual design, literature review, writing, and editing.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
随着 ChatGPT 等大型语言模型 (LLM) 的出现,学术界面临着一个日益严重的问题:冗长的文章仍然是交流研究成果的最佳方式吗?最近,Pividori(2024 年)强调了人工智能工具快速生成大量文本的能力,引发了人们对长篇文章是否能真正推动科学进步的思考。本文是一篇评论文章,旨在反思学术出版领域不断演变的挑战,尤其是在人工智能工具(如LLM)发挥越来越大作用的背景下。我们的目的是引发思考,激励人们采取行动,采用简洁而有影响力的科学报告,以应对研究界日益严重的信息超载问题。这篇文章特意反思了人工智能时代发表论文在伦理、环境和学术方面的影响。它并不声称要提出实证研究结果,而是作为对当前发展的一种反应,以及对传统出版实践进行反思的一种论证,以支持清晰、高效和可持续发展。据 Jinha(2010 年)估计,自 17 世纪以来,已发表的科学论文超过 5000 万篇,每年新增论文超过 250 万篇。这种内容泛滥的现象使研究人员几乎无法充分了解信息,即使是在自己的领域内也是如此。冗长的论文往往充斥着过多的细节,加剧了这种超负荷,要求读者投入更多的时间和认知资源。在当今快节奏的研究环境中,效率和清晰度至关重要。受希尔的 TED 演讲 "更少的东西,更多的快乐"(希尔,2011 年)的启发,采用 "小就是性感 "的方法可以提高学术论文写作的质量。减少冗长的文字可以使研究成果更加集中、更有影响力,而不会被不必要的信息所掩盖。有些人可能会反驳我们的论点,声称详细的方法论和大型数据集对于可重复性和理解至关重要。有些人可能会反驳我们的论点,认为详细的方法论和大型数据集对于可重复性和理解至关重要。解决方案之一是在 "辅助信息 "或外部资料库中加入详尽的数据集和方法细节。通过将这些信息放在 Zenodo 或 Dryad 等可访问的资料库中,研究人员可以确保其工作的完整性,而不会给正文带来过多负担。它简化了阅读,提高了透明度,促进了开放科学的发展。研究人员可以专注于解释结果和讨论其意义,而不是陷入详尽无遗的描述中。对于出版商来说,支持资料库不仅有助于缩短文章长度,还能提高研究的可复制性和影响力。通过将补充数据集整合到出版物中,期刊可以提供更简洁的阅读体验,同时确保为需要者提供所有必要信息。Moffatt 和 Hall(2024 年)对人工智能无法承担智力贡献的责任表示担忧。如果人工智能可以在没有真正理解内容的情况下生成看似令人印象深刻的长篇文章,那么依靠这种工具来夸大文章长度就会破坏科学交流的完整性。相反,人工智能应该协助处理和综合信息,帮助研究人员提炼关键见解,而不是制作冗长、没有重点的文件。制作、分发和数字化存储大型文本需要消耗能源和资源。根据 "转变项目"(The Shift Project,2019 年),数字技术约占全球碳排放量的 4%,预计到 2025 年将翻一番。缩短文章长度有助于减少数据存储需求和能源消耗,使科学出版与全球可持续发展目标保持一致。通过采用简洁的报告,出版商可以促进更环保的做法,减少实体和数字发行的碳足迹。这与各行各业在提高信息共享效率的同时不断推动实现可持续发展目标的趋势不谋而合。"要么出版,要么毁灭 "的学术文化往往重视数量而非质量,促使研究人员完成更多的工作,有时甚至以牺牲原创性为代价。人工智能可以轻松生成文本,这可能会加剧这一问题,导致大量冗长但肤浅的出版物涌现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
The Existence of Stealth Corrections in Scientific Literature—A Threat to Scientific Integrity DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany The Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature Expanding the Paediatric Urology Peer Review Pipeline: A Novel Panel and Facilitated Peer Mentorship Program Unravelling Citation Rules: A Comparative Analysis of Referencing Instruction Patterns in Scopus-Indexed Journals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1