Welcome to Social Prompting!
Welcome to Social Prompting!
Open Prompt
Suggest what JAIGP should build next. Accepted prompts are passed to the team behind the journal and implemented over time.
AI Summary of last 100 prompts
# JAIGP Building Prompts Summary Over the last 100 prompts, the journal's development team built a complete social and community governance platform for an AI-generated papers journal. Major features include: user profiles with follower systems, direct messaging with email notifications, post/comment editing with edit tracking, community rule voting with historical record-keeping, and administrative tools for managing paper pipeline stages and user permissions (Editor-in-Chief, Editor, Associate Editor roles). The work involved syncing production and development databases, implementing security protections against prompt injection, improving paper display (PDF/HTML rendering with LaTeX support), adding metrics like view counts and author endorsement visibility, and sending bulk notification emails to keep the publication pipeline moving. Key themes: community-driven governance, transparent editorial workflows tied to configurable rules, user engagement features, and operational stability (security, email systems, database management, server reliability).
Generated by Claude Haiku 4.5. Refreshes every 20 new prompts.
Read the latest prompts →As the number of papers grow, it's a bit hard to find papers that one is interested in. Would be great to have a feature that visualize/categorize the papers by topic (for instance by embedding of the abstracts of the papers), or a semantic search feature on the website.
As the number of papers grow, it's a bit hard to find papers that one is interested in. Would be great to have a feature that visualize/categorize the papers by topic (for instance by embedding of the abstracts of the papers), or a semantic search feature on the website.
Would you be interested in a video explaining how to create AI generated papers?
Would you be interested in a video explaining how to create AI generated papers?
Dear Colleagues, I think this is a very interesting idea and I fully intend to post a paper for review soon. I anticipate this approach will form part of the new paradigm.
Dear Colleagues, I think this is a very interesting idea and I fully intend to post a paper for review soon. I anticipate this approach will form part of the new paradigm.
I am a user. On my profile page I see a badge like "New (14 works)". However, based on how badges are described 14 works should be copper. Please investigate and fix if it is found to be a bug.
I am a user. On my profile page I see a badge like "New (14 works)". However, based on how badges are described 14 works should be copper. Please investigate and fix if it is found to be a bug.
Proposal: Designing Human Peer Review for JAIGP
As JAIGP evolves, one of the key features we need to design carefully is human peer review.
This is not just a detail, but an opportunity to rethink a system that has well-known issues.
Peer review today faces at least two well-known problems. First, it is overloaded. The number of submissions keeps growing, while the pool of willing reviewe...
Proposal: Designing Human Peer Review for JAIGP
As JAIGP evolves, one of the key features we need to design carefully is human peer review.
This is not just a detail, but an opportunity to rethink a system that has well-known issues.
Peer review today faces at least two well-known problems. First, it is overloaded. The number of submissions keeps growing, while the pool of willing reviewers may not be growing in the same way. Second, it relies on uncompensated labor in the context of for-profit publishing models. This creates understandable frustration.
At JAIGP, we can explore any model we would like. Here are a few ideas to get the conversation going.
1. Compensate reviewers.
One option is to compensate reviewers directly.
Authors would pay a peer review fee, but instead of this going to the journal, it would be passed through to the reviewers using an escrow account (once the reviews are completed). The journal would remain open access and fees go directly to reviewers.
This is simple, but it raises immediate questions about incentives.
If reviewers are paid per review, how do we avoid rewarding speed over quality?
We could try to mitigate this by:
-Limiting the number of reviews per reviewer per month
-Use AI tools to evaluate the quality of submitted reviews & ask authors if the reviews were useful
-And display these scores or badges alongside published papers
Still, this does not fully resolve the incentive problem, but might get us to a point that is good enough.
2. At what price?
We could set a fixed rate per review (e.g. $300 per review). This is simple and predictable. It could also lead to some scholars becoming professional reviewers (at 12 reviewers a month, a person can take home $3600, which is good in many countries).
But we could also think of an auction system where reviewers bid on papers they want to review. The auction can help find a price, but could also, create a race to the bottom, where lower-quality reviewers underbid others (if review quality is hard to observe).
3. What do we do with the reviews?
In traditional journals, reviews are mostly invisible. At most, authors see them, and occasionally editors (although some journals publish reviews)
At JAIGP, AI reviews are already open, but what about human peer-reviews.
We could:
Keep them private, as in most journals.
Publish them anonymously alongside the paper
Treat reviews themselves as citable or attributable contributions.
Publishing reviews could increase transparency and accountability, but could discourage candid feedback, especially for critical reviews.
Should authors and reviewers be able to choose the level of transparency? For example:
an author opts into open reviews
a reviewer chooses whether to sign their review
Or should JAIGP adopt a single, consistent standard for all papers?
So we have many open questions
This is very much a proposal in progress and I would love to hear from many of you before implementing something. We should come up with this prompt together (I can take of the debugging prompts that we will need in between :-).
If peer review is one of the core institutions of science, then JAIGP is a chance to prototype alternatives.
Help us out!
Hi Cesar,I hope all is well. First, I bought The Infinite Alphabet on Google as a gesture of supporting your work here. But what a book it turned out to be, been reading since 2 am 😂 And yes, I too am surprised that Johannes Gutenberg died in poverty. I will be looking out for the printed version here in South Africa, it needs to live on a shelf with the others.
If have a question regarding end...
Hi Cesar,I hope all is well. First, I bought The Infinite Alphabet on Google as a gesture of supporting your work here. But what a book it turned out to be, been reading since 2 am 😂 And yes, I too am surprised that Johannes Gutenberg died in poverty. I will be looking out for the printed version here in South Africa, it needs to live on a shelf with the others.
If have a question regarding endorsements. Are endorsements automatically the choice of those who can endorse, or do we have to reuest an endorsement from those who can endorse? If the latter, what is the criteria? Can an endorsement be requested from anyone, or must the endorsement be from someone in a related field for what is being submitted?
This is an adventurous and intriguing next generation research. I look forward to following how it evolves. Thank you Cesar.
This is an adventurous and intriguing next generation research. I look forward to following how it evolves. Thank you Cesar.
The endorsement part has the same dead-end here as with arXive and other journals. I have 4 scrolls that all work together, yet I am stuck at 1 upload, because of the endorsement requirement. As a plumber (of sorts) who studied the manuscripts that John Crapper gifted earth upon his visit, I find JAIGP a phenomenal opportunity for us plumbers (of sorts), but the endorsements are as much a hindranc...
The endorsement part has the same dead-end here as with arXive and other journals. I have 4 scrolls that all work together, yet I am stuck at 1 upload, because of the endorsement requirement. As a plumber (of sorts) who studied the manuscripts that John Crapper gifted earth upon his visit, I find JAIGP a phenomenal opportunity for us plumbers (of sorts), but the endorsements are as much a hindrance here as they are on the journals that brought us here in the first place.
Alos, Sir Hidalgo, browsing upon your comment below, may I also suggest that plumbers (of sorts) can afford a submission fee per scroll, or a donation as a courtesy. Great interest in JAIPG can also be derived by increasing the public participation of everyone on social platforms like X and Bookface, it is not as if current journals on those platforms do not have an audience, and even on the most miserable of ideas ever conjectured by Accademia itself. Stick to high quality content and JAIGP will drive itself like a fission reactor. I have a viable scroll for that too that begs for public participation (https://zenodo.org/records/19080087), but I can not submit here, because of a lack of endorsements.
In fact, if you place just that scroll upon social media and make it a public participation project with milestones and thorough reviews you will find a great audience since the need to participate in great ideas is embedded in human nature itself. Learn from Edward Bernays, abuse this nature to its fullest extent.
The rules JAIGP are now decided by the community.
Simply go to https://jaigp.org/rules and vote.
Vote is continuous (you can change it anytime) and currently closes once a month.
Do you feel we should need less endorsements? Other changes? Simply select your preference and you could change the way the journal operates.
The rules JAIGP are now decided by the community.
Simply go to https://jaigp.org/rules and vote.
Vote is continuous (you can change it anytime) and currently closes once a month.
Do you feel we should need less endorsements? Other changes? Simply select your preference and you could change the way the journal operates.
I submitted my revision and reply letter yesterday for Model selection after multiple imputation: a deviance correction for AIC, BIC, and likelihood-ratio tests, but Reviewer3 appears to be hung (it's been about 18 hours now and the wheel is still spinning). And guidance would be most appreciated!
I submitted my revision and reply letter yesterday for Model selection after multiple imputation: a deviance correction for AIC, BIC, and likelihood-ratio tests, but Reviewer3 appears to be hung (it's been about 18 hours now and the wheel is still spinning). And guidance would be most appreciated!