References
1.
Coles, N. A., Hamlin, J. K., Sullivan, L. L.,
Parker, T. H. & Altschul, D. Build up big-team
science. Nature 601, 505–507 (2022).
2.
Coles, N. A., Goes Braga Takayanagi, J. F.,
Grant, G. L. & Basnight-Brown, D. M. The rise, impact, and
imbalances of big-team psychology. Psychological Science
37, 287–297 (2026).
3.
Coles, N. A. et al. Team scientists should
normalize disagreement. Science 384,
1076–1077 (2024).
4.
Baumgartner, H. A. et al. How to build up big team
science: A practical guide for large-scale collaborations. Royal
Society Open Science 10, 230235 (2023).
5.
Si,
C., Yang, D. & Hashimoto, T. Can
LLMs generate novel research ideas? A large-scale human study with 100+
NLP researchers. in International conference on learning
representations (eds Yue, Y., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F. & Yu,
R.) vol. 2025 94003–94092 (2025).
6.
Tong, S., Mao, K., Huang, Z., Zhao, Y. &
Peng, K. Automating psychological hypothesis generation with AI: When
large language models meet causal graph. Humanities and Social
Sciences Communications 11, 896 (2024).
7.
Schmitt, B., Hao, S., Pham, M. T. &
Hofstetter, R. Generative grounded theory (GGT): Inductive
theory building in the age of generative AI. Journal of
Consumer Psychology https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.70036
(2026) doi:10.1002/jcpy.70036.
8.
Yamada, Y. et al. Towards end-to-end
automation of AI research. Nature
651, 914–919 (2026).
9.
Nature. Why AI cannot do good
science without humans. Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01551-3
(2026).
10.
OpenAI. The hugging face incident and the road
ahead. https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-ahead/
(2026).
11.
Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for
reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour
1, 0021 (2017).
12.
Kosmyna, N. et al. Your brain on
ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an
AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2506.08872 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872
(2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872.
13.
Hao, Q., Xu, F., Li, Y. & Evans, J. Artificial
intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s
focus. Nature 649, 1237–1243 (2026).
14.
Brodeur, A. et
al. AI-assisted
teams outperform AI-led teams but not human-only teams in
assessing research reproducibility in quantitative social science.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
123, e2524747123 (2026).
15.
Grigorev, A. Claude Code wiped our
production database with a Terraform command. https://x.com/Al_Grigor/status/2029889772181934425
(2026).
16.
Topaz, M., Roguin, N., Gupta, P., Zhang, Z.
& Peltonen, L.-M. Fabricated
citations: An audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers. The
Lancet 407, 1779–1781 (2026).
17.
Kuhn, T. S. The essential tension: Tradition
and innovation in scientific research. in The essential tension:
Selected studies in scientific tradition and change 225–239
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977). doi:10.7208/9780226217239-010.
18.
Southworth, J. et al. Developing a model
for AI across the curriculum: Transforming the higher
education landscape via innovation in AI literacy.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
4, 100127 (2023).
19.
Radford, A., Narasimhan, K., Salimans, T. &
Sutskever, I. Improving Language Understanding by Generative
Pre-Training. https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf
(2018).
20.
Brown, T. B., Mann, B.,
Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., et al. Language models are
few-shot learners. arXiv preprint https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165
(2020) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165.
21.
OpenAI. OpenAI GPT-5 system card.
arXiv preprint https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.03267
(2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.03267.
22.
Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. An experimental application
of the Delphi method to the use of experts.
Management Science 9, 458–467 (1963).
23.
National Research Council. Enhancing the
Effectiveness of Team Science. (National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2015). doi:10.17226/19007.
24.
Matsui, K. et al. Human-comparable sensitivity of
large language models in identifying eligible studies through title and
abstract screening: 3-layer strategy using GPT-3.5 and
GPT-4 for systematic reviews. Journal of Medical
Internet Research 26, e52758 (2024).
25.
Li,
M., Sun, J. & Tan, X. Evaluating the
effectiveness of large language models in abstract screening: A
comparative analysis. Systematic Reviews
13, 219 (2024).
26.
Hilkenmeier, F., Stoltenberg, M. & Stierle,
C. Using full
agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract
screening in systematic reviews: A proof-of-concept. Systematic
Reviews 15, 191 (2026).
27.
Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R. & Mutz, R. Growth rates of modern
science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication
numbers from established and new literature databases.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
8, 224 (2021).
28.
Larsen, J. T., Coles, N. A. & Jordan, D. K.
Varieties of
mixed emotional experience. Current Opinion in Behavioral
Sciences 15, 72–76 (2017).
29.
Anthropic. Claude. https://claude.ai (2026).
30.
Anthropic. Claude code. https://claude.com/product/claude-code
(2026).
31.
OpenAI. ChatGPT. https://chatgpt.com (2026).
32.
Google. Gemini notebook. https://notebook.google.com
(2026).
33.
Consensus. Consensus. https://consensus.app (2026).
34.
Wu,
E. C.-I. Academic research skills for Claude Code. https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
(2026).
36.
Brake, J. Major N.L. Healthcare
report contains errors likely generated by A.I. https://theindependent.ca/news/lji/major-n-l-healthcare-report-contains-errors-likely-generated-by-a-i/
(2025).
37.
Charlotin, D. AI hallucination
cases. https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
(2026).
38.
Kennard, E. & Manto, M. The
MAHA report cites studies that don’t exist. https://www.washingtonsun.com/health-science/make-america-healthy-again-report-citation-errors
(2025).
39.
Clark, J. et al. Generative artificial
intelligence use in evidence synthesis: A systematic review.
Research Synthesis Methods 16, 601–619
(2025).
40.
Microsoft Defender Security Research Team &
Kochavi, N. Manipulating AI memory for profit: The rise of
AI recommendation poisoning. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/02/10/ai-recommendation-poisoning/
(2026).
41.
Brunner, T., Liu, Y.-H. & Pande, M.
AI threats in the wild: The current state of prompt
injections on the web. https://blog.google/security/prompt-injections-web/
(2026).
42.
OpenAI. Understanding prompt injections. https://openai.com/safety/prompt-injections/
(2026).
43.
Vibe Graveyard. Vibe graveyard: AI
failure archive. https://vibegraveyard.ai/
(2026).
44.
Ritchie, S. Science Fictions: How Fraud,
Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth.
(Metropolitan Books, New York, 2020).
45.
Ashokkumar, A., Hewitt, L., Ghezae, I. &
Willer, R. Large
language models can predict the results of social science
experiments. Nature 656, 115–122
(2026).
46.
Argyle, L. P. et al. Out of one, many: Using
language models to simulate human samples. Political
Analysis 31, 337–351 (2023).
47.
Hill, C. et al. Large language
models for thematic analysis in healthcare research: A blinded
mixed-methods comparison with human analysts. PLOS Digital
Health 5, e0001189 (2026).
48.
Cuthbertson, A. Man builds AI
torture chamber after discovering artificial intelligence ‘feels
pain’. https://www.the-independent.com/tech/ai-torture-chamber-pain-b3059571.html
(2026).
49.
O’Grady, C. ‘Unethical’
AI research on Reddit under fire.
Science 388, 570–571 (2025).
50.
Corneille, O. & Béna, J. Instruction-based
replication studies raise challenging questions for psychological
science. Collabra: Psychology 9,
(2023).
51.
Matsumoto, D. Cultural similarities and
differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion
14, 195–214 (1990).
52.
Yarkoni, T. The generalizability
crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 45,
e1 (2022).
53.
University of Zurich researchers. Can
AI change your view? Evidence from a
large-scale online field experiment. https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ExtendedAbstract-Zurich-AI-Reddit.pdf
(2025).
54.
Westwood, S. J. The potential existential
threat of large language models to online survey research.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
122, e2518075122 (2025).
55.
Chopra, F. & Haaland, I. Conducting
Qualitative Interviews with AI. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4583756
(2026) doi:10.2139/ssrn.4583756.
56.
Huang, S. et
al. What 81,000 people want from AI. https://www.anthropic.com/features/81k-interviews
(2026).
57.
Coles, N. A., Wyatt, M. & Frank, M. C. A meta-analysis of the
impact and heterogeneity of explicit demand characteristics.
Collabra: Psychology 11, 143005 (2025).
58.
Wang, A., Morgenstern, J. & Dickerson, J.
P. Large language
models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and
flatten identity groups. Nature Machine Intelligence
7, 400–411 (2025).
59.
Geiecke, F. & Jaravel, X. Conversations
at Scale: Robust AI-Led Interviews with a Simple
Open-Source Platform. https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f221279.pdf
(2025).
60.
Morris, G. E., Bakhshi, S., Leff, B.,
Rothschild, J. & Marshall, J. Depth at a cost: A randomized
comparison of AI-moderated interviews and written survey
open-ends. https://www.verasight.io/reports/ai-moderated-interviews-vs-survey-open-ends
(2026).
61.
OpenAI. Sharing AI progress in
mathematics. https://openai.com/index/sharing-ai-progress-in-mathematics/
(2026).
62.
Li,
K. An NYU professor says OpenAI’s mass release
of math papers wiped out early-career researchers’ projects. https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/nyu-professor-says-openais-mass-001630910.html
(2026).
63.
Steinberger, P. OpenClaw. https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw
(2026).
64.
DeepSeek. DeepSeek. https://www.deepseek.com
(2025).
65.
Kassianik, P. & Karbasi, A. Evaluating
security risk in DeepSeek and other frontier reasoning
models. https://blogs.cisco.com/security/evaluating-security-risk-in-deepseek-and-other-frontier-reasoning-models
(2025).