Latest news with #academia
Wall Street Journal
6 days ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Public Needs Campus Viewpoint Diversity
President Trump began acting on his pledge to end wokeness by targeting DEI and critical race theory in universities and the federal government. While this was a good first step, shutting down woke programs goes only so far; it limits what bad actors in academia can do, but it leaves those bad actors in place. Without broader staffing reforms, radical left-wing professors will still control higher education. Several states are trying to dictate what professors should and shouldn't teach, but these efforts similarly don't reach the core of academia's sickness—the political monopoly that guarantees its continued malignancy.
Geeky Gadgets
09-06-2025
- Science
- Geeky Gadgets
AI Literature Review Tools Exposed: Which Ones Are Lying to You?
What if the tool you trusted to streamline your research was quietly feeding you lies? In the race to harness AI for academic productivity, literature review tools promise to save hours of tedious work. But here's the catch: not all of them tell the truth. Imagine submitting a paper only to discover that 1 in 4 of your references is fabricated. That's the reality I uncovered while testing three popular AI-powered tools—Manis, Gen Spark, and Gemini AI. The results? Eye-opening. Only one of them delivered the accuracy and reliability essential for serious research, while the others left me questioning their place in academic workflows. If you've ever wondered whether AI can truly be trusted with your literature reviews, this rundown might surprise you. Andy Stapleton breaks down the performance of these tools based on speed, usability, and—most critically—accuracy. You'll discover which AI tool churned out a 61-page report with near-perfect references, and which one sacrificed credibility for speed. Whether you're a researcher seeking to save time or just curious about the limits of AI in academia, this comparison will help you navigate the trade-offs. By the end, you'll know which tool is worth your trust—and which might lead you astray. Because when it comes to academic integrity, the stakes are too high for guesswork. AI Literature Review Tools Manis: Speed Over Accuracy Manis demonstrated impressive speed, completing a literature review in just three minutes. It generated a 14-page document with 38 references, making it an appealing option for researchers who prioritize efficiency. However, its accuracy raised concerns. Approximately 16% of the references were either fabricated or inaccurate, posing a risk to the credibility of any research relying on its output. Key Strengths: Exceptional processing speed (3 minutes). Organized research themes for easier navigation. Downloadable PDF format for immediate use. Key Weaknesses: Moderate fabrication rate (16%). Repetition and inaccuracies in references. Manis is a viable option for generating quick overviews, but its reliability is compromised by the need for thorough manual verification. While its speed is a clear advantage, the trade-off in accuracy limits its utility for rigorous academic research. Gen Spark: A Balanced but Limited Option Gen Spark offered a more balanced approach, completing the task in 5-7 minutes. It produced 19 references and demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the research prompt. However, its fabrication rate was higher at 26%, and its limited output made it less suitable for in-depth academic projects. Key Strengths: Moderate processing time (5-7 minutes). Reasonable comprehension of research prompts. Key Weaknesses: High fabrication rate (26%). Limited number of references (19). Output format is less user-friendly compared to competitors. Gen Spark may serve as a starting point for preliminary research, but its higher error rate and limited scope make it less dependable for detailed academic work. Researchers seeking comprehensive and accurate results may find its limitations restrictive. I Tested 3 Literature Review AIs – Only One Didn't Lie to Me Watch this video on YouTube. Take a look at other insightful guides from our broad collection that might capture your interest in AI Literature Review Tools. Gemini AI: The Benchmark for Reliability Gemini AI emerged as the most reliable tool among the three tested. While it required the longest processing time—20 minutes—it delivered a 61-page document with 105 references. Only 1% of these references were problematic, and the issues were related to accessibility rather than outright fabrication. Gemini AI also stood out for its inclusion of structured data, tables, and up-to-date references, providing a level of detail unmatched by the other tools. Key Strengths: Extensive output (61 pages, 105 references). Minimal inaccuracies (1%). Inclusion of tables and structured data for clarity. Key Weaknesses: Longest processing time (20 minutes). Does not strictly adhere to peer-reviewed sources. Lacks integration with reference management tools. For researchers who value accuracy and depth, Gemini AI is the most dependable choice. While its longer processing time requires patience, its detailed output and low error rate make it a standout tool for academic literature reviews. Final Assessment After evaluating all three tools, Gemini AI clearly stands out as the most reliable option for academic literature reviews. Its detailed output, minimal error rate, and comprehensive analysis set it apart, despite its longer processing time. Manis, with its speed and moderate accuracy, is a reasonable alternative for quick overviews, while Gen Spark falls short due to its higher fabrication rate and limited scope. Final Rankings: First Place: Gemini AI for its depth, accuracy, and comprehensive output. Gemini AI for its depth, accuracy, and comprehensive output. Second Place: Manis for its speed and relatively low fabrication rate. Manis for its speed and relatively low fabrication rate. Third Place: Gen Spark due to its higher inaccuracy and limited scope. Practical Insights for Researchers AI tools for literature reviews hold significant potential, but they are not without flaws. Regardless of the tool you choose, manual verification remains essential to ensure the accuracy and credibility of your references. Among the tested options, Gemini AI sets the standard for academic productivity, offering a balance of precision and thoroughness that researchers can trust. While Manis and Gen Spark have their merits, they fall short of the reliability and depth required for rigorous academic work. Researchers should weigh their priorities—whether speed, accuracy, or comprehensiveness—when selecting the right tool for their needs. Media Credit: Andy Stapleton Filed Under: AI, Guides Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Independent Singapore
02-06-2025
- Business
- Independent Singapore
Trump's brain drain is America's loss, but could be the world's biggest win
INTERNATIONAL: There was a time when Danielle Beckman viewed the United States as the apex of opportunity for researchers and experts. A neuroscientist from Brazil, Beckman accomplished her ultimate desire in 2017 when she joined the California National Primate Research Centre at UC Davis. 'Coming to the US was always the dream,' Beckman said. 'It was always the place to be, where there's the biggest investment in science.' But just a few years later, according to a recent CNN report, that dream has disintegrated. Amid comprehensive slashes to research subsidies, government meddling in academia, and anti-immigrant pomposity, Beckman is now prepared to leave the U.S. Her laboratory has already lost $2.5 million in revoked endowments, and she's now exploring prospects in Germany and France. 'It's the first time since I moved here that I don't feel so welcome anymore,' she said. Beckman is not alone. A rising migration of academics and field experts is in progress, as top inventors and professors in different disciplines are searching for new homes for their work, and their families in nations where science is still guarded and treasured. Countries rush to recruit U.S. scientists As America's academic setting becomes increasingly antagonistic, other countries are making the most of the opportunity. The European Union has guaranteed €500 million ($562 million) to turn Europe into a centre for banished researchers. France is initiating a 'Safe Place for Science' package in Marseille to admit targeted or repressed researchers. In the meantime, Canada, Norway, Singapore, and Australia all have activated parallel endeavours to entice superior talent from the U.S. 'We know these individuals are highly trained, talented, and have much to offer,' said Anna-Maria Arabia, CEO of the Australian Academy of Science. Her group is one of the many tapping into what she calls a 'global hunger' for scientific proficiency, now bolting away from the U.S. in hordes. These worldwide initiatives mark a dramatic setback to the established brain gain America has relished for a long time. The damage, experts caution, could change the global scenario of innovation and research direction. Funding slashed, freedoms threatened, and the toll of Trump's policies. As he entered his second term, President Donald Trump has overturned the connection between the federal government and America's primary research institutions. Federal backing for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF)—once pillars of worldwide systematic management—has been reduced by billions. Nearly 700 NIH endowments totalling $1.8 billion were lost in just a few weeks earlier this year. The Trump government has also planned a 40% decrease in the NIH's 2026 budget. Simultaneously, leading academies like Harvard are embattled for their refusal to pull apart diversity and inclusion agendas. The administration immobilised billions in federal financing and barred Harvard from registering transnational students, a verdict which was swiftly reversed by a federal judge. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt justified the government's rerouting of resources, saying they will coddle 'trade schools and state programs promoting American values,' while disparaging 'LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University.' The message is clear: The U.S. government is becoming increasingly unreceptive and antagonistic to independent science, global students, and the type of academic autonomy that once demarcated its universal standing. The collapse of U.S. scientific leadership? For many decades, the U.S. has long been the world's research steamroller, behind more than 400 Nobel Prizes, many earned by émigrés, and boosted by approximately a trillion dollars in yearly public and private R&D investment. Today, that reputation is now in jeopardy. China, with more than $780 billion in yearly R&D outlay, is quickly closing the innovation gap. The European Union's R&D investments have increased by 50% over the past decade and a half. These nations are now better positioned to engage the world's superior minds. See also Speaker of the House seat up for grabs again The consequence is a flashpoint. Based on a Nature survey from March, 75% of U.S. researchers said they're contemplating exiting the country due to the Trump administration's guidelines. Others, like Yale professors Jason Stanley, Marci Shore, and Timothy Snyder, distinguished academics of fascism, have already transferred to Canada. 'What we are losing is this whole cadre of highly productive, young, energetic, well-trained, knowledgeable, advanced researchers,' cautioned Kenneth Wong, an expert education policy professional at Brown University. 'It's a complete reset of the collaborative relationship between the federal government and our leading research institutions.' For Beckman, whose study centres on how diseases like COVID-19 impact the brain, the choice is now less about politics and more about endurance and survival. 'There is interest in virology everywhere in the world except the U.S. right now,' she said. As the world welcomes U.S.-trained scientists, the question is: will America mend from the impairment, or relinquish its scientific advantage for good?
CBC
29-05-2025
- General
- CBC
Yale historian says it's easier to teach in Canada
For The National, CBC's Eli Glasner met up with history professor Timothy Snyder to ask him about the impact of the Trump administration's policies on academia and the potential fallout for education in the U.S.
Independent Singapore
29-05-2025
- Business
- Independent Singapore
Jamus Lim criticises Trump administration's move to bar Harvard from enrolling international students
SINGAPORE: Workers' Party MP Associate Professor Jamus Lim has criticised the Trump administration's recent decision to revoke Harvard University's ability to enrol international students, calling the move 'utterly wrongheaded and counterproductive.' In a Facebook post on Friday morning, Lim weighed in on the unfolding controversy between the U.S. government and the Ivy League institution. The decision comes after Harvard reportedly resisted demands to furnish information on certain foreign students. U.S. authorities responded by framing international enrollment as a 'privilege, not a right,' and accused the university of fostering a hostile and racially biased environment. Lim, an economics professor by training and long-time advocate of balancing foreign and local student intake in Singapore, expressed concern over what such coercive policy signals for education systems globally. While reiterating his support for prioritising Singaporean enrolment in local universities, especially in high-demand sectors like technology, he warned against 'extreme, self-defeating policies' that isolate institutions from the international academic community. 'Shutting out top global talent will ultimately undermine competitiveness, deprive students of diverse perspectives, and break the cycles of mutual knowledge exchange,' he wrote. 'For any institution whose objective is to advance the frontiers of human understanding, this is not only detrimental; it is destructive.' Lim emphasised the importance of maintaining a 'reasonable balance' between foreign and local presence in schools and workplaces, cautioning against adopting exclusionary measures driven by political expediency. He cited ongoing legal developments in the U.S., including a temporary injunction granted by a court, as reasons to continue monitoring the situation. 'There is always more to learn from the ideas of those that are different from us, and we shut those out at our peril,' Lim added.
