this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
1 points (60.0% liked)

Wild Feed

194 readers
29 users here now

A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.

Rules:

  1. Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.

  2. All posts should link to a current* blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "news."

  3. Post title should be the article title or best fit.

  4. No misinformation or bigotry.

  5. For paywalled media — provide an archived link in the text body of the post.

Tags: Not required unless the post fits under one of the below categories.

[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.

[OLD - (year)] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.

[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.

[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.

A more serious community for Independent Journalism — !Independent_Media@lemmy.today

Both communities were created with the goal of increasing media pluralism.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
Icytrees@sh.itjust.works
Wren@lemmy.today
Dasus@lemmy.world
1
Behind the scenes: How user feedback is shaping ScienceDirect AI (www.elsevier.com)
submitted 4 days ago by Icytrees@sh.itjust.works to c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“It’s just so hard to get to the information you need. It takes so much time,” Felisa said.

“Everything I’ve done within Elsevier is trying to get past that and help researchers spend less time sifting through papers to find what they need. But building something truly useful is not easy.”

It’s not easy indeed. More than 100 technologists and product experts worked tirelessly for over 18 months to bring ScienceDirect AI to life. Even with the right brains at the table, one more key ingredient is needed to make something that truly makes a difference: user input.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anyhow2503@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fuck Elsevier.

[–] Icytrees@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Did you read the article?

[–] anyhow2503@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I did read this promotion for Elsevier's AI search tool and I stand by my comment. We would be better off without the dubious paywalls of the big journals and especially without the biggest lobby voice against open access. This is just one more way they can profit from the free labour of others.

[–] Icytrees@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Awesome, thank you.

Sometimes I just like to see what people say. The arguably valid application for gen AI coupled with the controversy of Elsevier and an obvious promotion — it's an interesting intersection of topics.

Agreed, Elsevier sucks. Science Direct is an okay tool.