Generative adversarial collaborations: a new model of scientific discourse
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The first stage of the adversarial collaborative process calls for participants to work together to form a clear understanding of one another's theoretical commitments and disagreements.
“The first stage of the adversarial collaborative process calls for participants to work together to form a clear understanding of one another's theoretical commitments and disagreements (Bateman et al., 2005; Cowan et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2025).”
From Integrated information and predictive processing theories of consciousness: An adversarial collaborative review (2026) · cites this paper as Peters et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bacon, F. (1878). Novum organum. Clarendon press.
- Authors
- Peters, B., Blohm, G., Haefner, R., Isik, L., Kriegeskorte, N., Lieberman, J. S., Ponce, C. R., Roig, G., & Peters, M. A. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Queen's University (CA)
- University of Rochester (US)
- Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Peters, Megan A.K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-4
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405660904
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 2.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- scientific discourse, scientific paradigms, research programs, scientific controversy, scientific progress, incrementalism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
