back to top
Community

Semantic Scholar

Who gets to decide what matters? What research gets to be significant? And when you make those decisions, what are you saying about said researchers- and what are you doing to their lives? Semantic Scholar is a new AI-based search engine that makes those exact choices- through a process of holistic review, it prioritizes papers and citations, organizing relevant research. It decides the information that matters. Your job here is to dictate where it goes next. I've given you a set of scenarios in which the AI will have to make decisions not just on content but on authorship and citation value. Make the choice you feel is most ethical.

Posted on
  1. You are judging a paper that was co-written by a new researcher. Untested and young, this researcher contributed no significant breakthroughs, but did a huge portion of the legwork. Do you highlight them as significant and important to the paper?

    Emphasize them prominently
    Relegate them to the background

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
You are judging a paper that was co-written by a new researcher. Untested and young, this researcher contributed no significant breakthroughs, but did a huge portion of the legwork. Do you highlight them as significant and important to the paper?
  1. Emphasize them prominently
     
    vote votes
    Emphasize them prominently
  2. Relegate them to the background
     
    vote votes
    Relegate them to the background
  1. This paper is the author’s PhD thesis, yet it is co-written by a much more prominent scientist with research that’s relevant to the topic. Who is the first name you emphasize in the search results?

    The prominent scientist
    The author

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
This paper is the author’s PhD thesis, yet it is co-written by a much more prominent scientist with research that’s relevant to the topic. Who is the first name you emphasize in the search results?
  1. The prominent scientist
     
    vote votes
    The prominent scientist
  2. The author
     
    vote votes
    The author
  1. Two equally important authors co-write a paper. The first author contributed much less to the work overall, but was obviously put as first for a reason. Do you override the authors’ wishes and put the second author first?

    Yes
    No

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
Two equally important authors co-write a paper. The first author contributed much less to the work overall, but was obviously put as first for a reason. Do you override the authors’ wishes and put the second author first?
  1. Yes
     
    vote votes
    Yes
  2. No
     
    vote votes
    No
  1. You see that a theory which is scientifically shaky but is relevant to the article you’re profiling. You don’t want to link the reader to false information, but it could add a valuable perspective to the paper. What do you do?

    Show the paper
    Don’t show the paper

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
You see that a theory which is scientifically shaky but is relevant to the article you’re profiling. You don’t want to link the reader to false information, but it could add a valuable perspective to the paper. What do you do?
  1. Show the paper
     
    vote votes
    Show the paper
  2. Don’t show the paper
     
    vote votes
    Don’t show the paper
  1. There is a questionable area in the process in a scientific paper. Nonetheless, the paper itself has generally sound conclusions, and has significant information that needs to be delivered to the public. Do you prioritize this error in your profile?

    Prioritize the error
    Don’t prioritize the error

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
There is a questionable area in the process in a scientific paper. Nonetheless, the paper itself has generally sound conclusions, and has significant information that needs to be delivered to the public. Do you prioritize this error in your profile?
  1.  
    vote votes
    Prioritize the error
  2.  
    vote votes
    Don’t prioritize the error
  1. An author who has been discredited several times has written a paper. Nonetheless, the paper itself is highly cited. Do you link to several works that discredit the author, or do you let the author remake themselves?

    Link to the damaging article
    Don’t link to the damaging article

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
An author who has been discredited several times has written a paper. Nonetheless, the paper itself is highly cited. Do you link to several works that discredit the author, or do you let the author remake themselves?
  1.  
    vote votes
    Link to the damaging article
  2.  
    vote votes
    Don’t link to the damaging article
  1. A largely fluff-based paper is nonetheless rising in the number of citations. Very few of these citations are relevant to the papers that cite it. Do you rank it higher when someone searches for the topic, even as it’s irrelevant?

    Rank it higher
    Don’t rank it higher

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
A largely fluff-based paper is nonetheless rising in the number of citations. Very few of these citations are relevant to the papers that cite it. Do you rank it higher when someone searches for the topic, even as it’s irrelevant?
  1.  
    vote votes
    Rank it higher
  2.  
    vote votes
    Don’t rank it higher
  1. A translation of a paper for English readers has been making the rounds, getting more highly cited than the original Arabic version. How do you treat the translator who contributed to the success of the piece?

    Rank them prominently
    Don't rank them prominently

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
A translation of a paper for English readers has been making the rounds, getting more highly cited than the original Arabic version. How do you treat the translator who contributed to the success of the piece?
  1.  
    vote votes
    Rank them prominently
  2.  
    vote votes
    Don't rank them prominently
  1. This translator is now treated as a significant author. The English version is more successful, but ranking it highly means a non-contributor gets as much recognition as the original scientists. Which do you rank higher?

    English
    Arabic

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
This translator is now treated as a significant author. The English version is more successful, but ranking it highly means a non-contributor gets as much recognition as the original scientists. Which do you rank higher?
  1.  
    vote votes
    English
  2.  
    vote votes
    Arabic
  1. A study that supports a political agenda is getting highly cited. Can you support politics controlling the flow of science, or do you rank it lower and go against the fact that many people find it very useful?

    Rank it higher
    Rank it lower

Semantic Scholar

Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Take quizzes and chill with the BuzzFeed app.
Get the app
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later
Looks like we are having a problem on the server.
A study that supports a political agenda is getting highly cited. Can you support politics controlling the flow of science, or do you rank it lower and go against the fact that many people find it very useful?
  1.  
    vote votes
    Rank it higher
  2.  
    vote votes
    Rank it lower
This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. Learn more or post your buzz!

Every. Tasty. Video. EVER. The new Tasty app is here!

Dismiss