I appreciated the fact that so many scholars weighed in on this thread about ScholarSift, some positively and some with concerns. Quite a few of the concerns are actually things we& #39;re trying to *make better* with technology. But we acknowledge we& #39;ve only put a limited amount 1/ https://twitter.com/HBWHBWHBW/status/1380246379516268545">https://twitter.com/HBWHBWHBW...

of information on the website, and that it& #39;s just not enough for something that is so important to our community. We are working to put together more comprehensive public materials, and we& #39;re pretty confident that most people will think we& #39;re making an improvement to the 2/

way things work now, both for authors and for editors. Just in response to a few of the concerns, we don& #39;t deem articles "preempted," we help editors find closely related literature that wasn& #39;t cited. We also don& #39;t replace scholarly judgment or deep domain knowledge, we 3/

provide a tool that makes it more efficient. I& #39;m grateful for all those who& #39;ve seen our vision (SO many librarians!), and we& #39;re looking forward to persuading skeptics! We are thinking carefully about all the comments, and they will guide us as we build this new platform. /end