A reader alerted me a couple of weeks ago to the fact that Scholastica collects demographic data on authors, which apparently some journals are using in the selection process. Before I got around to it, the issue has exploded on various blogs; Blog Emperor Caron has links to the various discussions. Given that the law reviews had been moving to more peer (i.e., faculty) review of scholarship, this does seem a step backwards, but much will turn on what law reviews are really doing with this information.
Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog
News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…
The discussion here assumes an institutional context where returning to supervised in-person assessment is at least theoretically feasible, a reasonable…
Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…
Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.
I see this question as a bit naïve. There is metadata on every document created by a modern word processor…
There’s a simple way to test. Open a pre-2022 essay and copy-and-paste it into a new file.
To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…