James M. Zumel Dumlao
@jamesmzd.bsky.social
730 followers 100 following 33 posts
PhD Candidate at the University of Michigan School of Information :: Knowledge/Cultural Production, Science of Science :: he/him/his https://jamesmzd.github.io/
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Now published at PNAS ‼️ w/ @innovation.bsky.social

How does peer reviewer diversity affect fairness in peer review and the direction of published science? We find a "geographical representation bias" in 60 STEM journals published by @ioppublishing.bsky.social.

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Title and author info of PNAS paper linked
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
molly.wiki
slightly ominous mailer from the Red Cross
Mailer that reads: Molly, Seasons may change, but the need for blood is constant.
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
motorres.bsky.social
Austerity measures all over the place but the university has $50 million for… whatever this is
U-M announces investment in institute for civil discourse | The University Record
record.umich.edu
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
babeheim.bsky.social
How to quantify the impact of AI on long-run cultural evolution? Published today, I give it a go!

400+ years of strategic dynamics in the game of Go (Baduk/Weiqi), from feudalism to AlphaGo!
Miyagawa Shuntei's 1898 painting, "Playing Go (Japanese Chess)"
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
olivia.science
Finally! 🤩 Our position piece: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia:
doi.org/10.5281/zeno...

We unpick the tech industry’s marketing, hype, & harm; and we argue for safeguarding higher education, critical
thinking, expertise, academic freedom, & scientific integrity.
1/n
Abstract: Under the banner of progress, products have been uncritically adopted or
even imposed on users — in past centuries with tobacco and combustion engines, and in
the 21st with social media. For these collective blunders, we now regret our involvement or
apathy as scientists, and society struggles to put the genie back in the bottle. Currently, we
are similarly entangled with artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For example, software updates are rolled out seamlessly and non-consensually, Microsoft Office is bundled with chatbots, and we, our students, and our employers have had no say, as it is not
considered a valid position to reject AI technologies in our teaching and research. This
is why in June 2025, we co-authored an Open Letter calling on our employers to reverse
and rethink their stance on uncritically adopting AI technologies. In this position piece,
we expound on why universities must take their role seriously toa) counter the technology
industry’s marketing, hype, and harm; and to b) safeguard higher education, critical
thinking, expertise, academic freedom, and scientific integrity. We include pointers to
relevant work to further inform our colleagues. Figure 1. A cartoon set theoretic view on various terms (see Table 1) used when discussing the superset AI
(black outline, hatched background): LLMs are in orange; ANNs are in magenta; generative models are
in blue; and finally, chatbots are in green. Where these intersect, the colours reflect that, e.g. generative adversarial network (GAN) and Boltzmann machine (BM) models are in the purple subset because they are
both generative and ANNs. In the case of proprietary closed source models, e.g. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and
Apple’s Siri, we cannot verify their implementation and so academics can only make educated guesses (cf.
Dingemanse 2025). Undefined terms used above: BERT (Devlin et al. 2019); AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al.
2017); A.L.I.C.E. (Wallace 2009); ELIZA (Weizenbaum 1966); Jabberwacky (Twist 2003); linear discriminant analysis (LDA); quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). Table 1. Below some of the typical terminological disarray is untangled. Importantly, none of these terms
are orthogonal nor do they exclusively pick out the types of products we may wish to critique or proscribe. Protecting the Ecosystem of Human Knowledge: Five Principles
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
elisabethbik.bsky.social
After the lunch break, the next session will be 'Open Science and Data Sharing'
The first of three talks will be by Vincent Yuan, with 'Researcher Adherence to Journal Data Sharing Policies: A Meta-Research Study'
VY: Science runs on trust - but we need evidence.
#PRC10
Speaker and opening slide with red background
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Proud of my union coworkers ( @geo3550.bsky.social ) for pushing to bring graduate research back under contractual protections. All grad workers were in unit when we started 50 years ago, it’s time we get back to that. www.michigandaily.com/news/adminis...
Graduate student researchers launch campaign for unionization
Graduate student research assistants at the University of Michigan have relaunched their push for unionization.
www.michigandaily.com
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Nothing like good ‘ol Michigan football straight to the face
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
markrubin.bsky.social
Reflexive Reflexivity

“We advocate for *robust reflexivity,* a practice that critically reflects on reflexivity itself.”

‪By @catherinetrundle.bsky.social and colleagues

Open Access: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
Qualitative researchers are increasingly utilising reflexive practices to ensure transparency and assure quality. Current researcher reflexivity, we show, often hinges upon a set of assumptions about reflexivity itself. Through a critical literature review combined with reflexive vignettes, we offer an epistemological critique of reflexivity. We advocate for robust reflexivity, a practice that critically reflects on reflexivity itself. We thus encourage qualitative researchers to critique their reflexive practices in four ways: (1) we challenge the idea that reflexivity leads to revelation, and show the ways this idea reintroduces positivist notions of Truth under a constructionist guise; (2) we challenge simple binaries within many positionality statements, nuancing ideas of insider and outsider status, affinity and difference, and the dynamism of identity over time; (3) we show how reflexivity is a socially and culturally embedded practice, rather than a neutral and universal cognitive practice; and (4) we foreground the power dynamics of reflexivity, cautioning against the co-option of reflexivity in ways that perpetuate social inequities and mask hierarchies within research. To support robust reflexive practices, we offer a toolkit of questions that can act as prompts for critical engagements with reflexivity, and argue for the creation of more robustly reflexive methodological resources.
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
tomstafford.mastodon.online.ap.brid.gy
The future of AI superintelligence is already here, it is just not evenly distributed yet

#genai #llms #cogsci #chess

https://tomstafford.substack.com/p/superhuman-intelligence-already-exists
Text: superhuman intelligence already exists, and how it has affected the game of chess tells us something
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
jessexjesse.bsky.social
Congratulations @jamesmzd.bsky.social , USF MS-IDEC class of 2020!! Excellent and timely research on the structural forces working against international researchers with science of science superstar @innovation.bsky.social .
#econsky #polisky #socsky
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Now published at PNAS ‼️ w/ @innovation.bsky.social

How does peer reviewer diversity affect fairness in peer review and the direction of published science? We find a "geographical representation bias" in 60 STEM journals published by @ioppublishing.bsky.social.

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Title and author info of PNAS paper linked
jamesmzd.bsky.social
POLICY IMPLICATIONS 🛠️

We demonstrate how a lack of reviewer diversity can structurally advantage certain authors and ideas over others.

Anonymizing author identity may not be effective, supporting calls for diversification policies. However, this may require long-term investments in training.
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Private information? Many countries had lockdowns and travel restrictions in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We use this period as a negative shock to reviewers' information from seminars and conferences. The same-country preference was only slightly weaker during this period.
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Identity-based bias? A quasi-random policy rollout across journals of voluntary double-anonymization enabled an instrumental variables analysis. Hiding author identity did not reduce reviewer country homophily.
jamesmzd.bsky.social
MECHANISMS ⚙️

We consider 3 mechanisms behind reviewers' country homophily: identity-based bias, private information, and localized tastes

We conduct 2 exploratory analyses and provide suggestive evidence that localized tastes are the primary driver of reviewers' same-country preference.
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Comparing reviewers of the same manuscript (using fixed effects) allows us to control for common confounders (e.g., quality, topic, team size).

Together, these conditions structurally advantage authors from relatively wealthier countries.
jamesmzd.bsky.social
MAIN FINDINGS 🔎

1) Peer reviewers from the corresponding author's country were ~5pp more likely to recommend publication than other reviewers for the same manuscript.

2) Corr. authors' likelihood of having a same-country reviewer was highest for those in countries well-represented among reviewers.
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Many have pointed out mismatches between reviewer and author populations, but evidence that this shapes what gets published has been inconclusive due to lack of granular peer review data.

Using review-level metadata on ~205k submissions from 2018-2022, we demonstrate two conditions for this bias...
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Now published at PNAS ‼️ w/ @innovation.bsky.social

How does peer reviewer diversity affect fairness in peer review and the direction of published science? We find a "geographical representation bias" in 60 STEM journals published by @ioppublishing.bsky.social.

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Title and author info of PNAS paper linked
Reposted by James M. Zumel Dumlao
ssrn.bsky.social
This paper explores academic peer review as a source of knowledge transfer and learning for the reviewers themselves.
spkl.io/63328A1crC
@innovation.bsky.social @jamesmzd.bsky.social
Stack of papers and books
jamesmzd.bsky.social
I think that would be an ideal experiment (just need $$ to run it)!! Thinking about how to do this in an ecologically valid way… especially since some folks are chiming in that they only read when reviewing 🤔
jamesmzd.bsky.social
Learning vs. familiarity/awareness looks functionally similar under the definition of learning we’re using from thr Org Behavior lit. One suggestion from @mariomalicki.bsky.social is to look at *how* reviewers cite (e.g., substantive vs. rhetorical)