Black Box, White Collar: How AI Learned to Reject You in Milliseconds

A recent research article published in APA''s Journal Consulting Psychology Journal titled, Some Ethical and Legal Issues in Using Artificial Intelligence in Personnel Selection by Dr. Olaf Ringelband and Dr. Christian Warneke looked at the use of AI in the hiring process. The article can be found on psycnet.apa.org

If you have experienced AI in the sandbox which is LinkedIn you might have a predisposed view - that is negative, on the use of AI in the hiring process. But more and more companies are using AI not only to match and screen but also to interview candidates for important roles. For my part, thanks to LinkedIn's matching system, I now get daily notifications about exciting opportunities that require 10 years of experience in technologies that were invented 3 years ago, which really makes me feel like I'm nailing this whole career thing.

The Problem with Algorithmic Hiring 
Ringelband and Warnke remind us that artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the landscape of personnel selection. What began as a promising tool for streamlining recruitment has evolved into a complex ethical and legal minefield. AI systems, trained on historical data, now influence hiring and promotion decisions across industries. Yet the opacity of these systems—particularly those based on deep learning—raises troubling questions. Their “black box” nature makes it difficult to discern how decisions are made, and whether they are fair. The risk is that AI may not only replicate existing biases but institutionalize them, all under the guise of efficiency.

The authors of this article set up the discussion in the following way:

In the present article, we aim to translate research into practice by highlighting the points of contact between assessment and AI and by focusing on the data available for assessment AI tools. As the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020) states, “Inasmuch as computer technology, test instrument usage, and new instrument design are constantly evolving, the responsibilities and challenges to the psychologist practitioner using these modalities are likewise substantial.” (p. 22).

It's All Too Seductive
The allure of AI in hiring is undeniable. Algorithms score assessments, generate interview questions, and produce written feedback at a rate far exceeding most HR departments. They promise speed, cost savings, and the promise of objectivity. But the same systems can also discriminate in ways more insidious than human bias. A model trained on data from successful executives might favor middle-aged men with degrees in engineering, thereby excluding women and minorities. Worse, AI can exploit behavioral data—mouse clicks, dwell time, social media activity—of debatable relevance to the job requirements or as a predictor of success, without explicit consent, raising serious privacy concerns. As the authors state, as 'participants' (willing or not) in these solutions, there is a requirement to be better informed how and when these tools are being used. Of course, transparency may not be in a corporations best interest.

Fixing the Machine

Candidates should know when AI is involved, what data are being used, and how decisions are made. Human oversight is essential; AI should assist, not replace, recruiters. Bias audits and retraining of models can help mitigate discrimination, though these require technical expertise and organizational will. The authors advise, consulting psychologists, with their grounding in ethics and statistical methods, are well-positioned to lead this charge. But they must be able to speak the language of algorithms—and to challenge them and the supporters when required.

Prudent Regulation
While the authors may be slightly naive in their advice to cautiously embrace AI since the train is now long gone from the station, they are right that corrective measures must be adopted which are grounded in established psychological theory and ethical standards. Additionally, regulatory frameworks must evolve to keep pace with technological disruption. While no one seems to be saying that AI in hiring is implemented without any human interaction, decisions affecting human lives should not be left to machines alone. Which might seem obvious but that is probably a goal written on a ppt deck somewhere in Palo Alto. Governance comes up a lot when AI is mentioned - possibly because of the lack of it, but as the technology matures, so too must the governance surrounding it. The future of hiring depends not just on smarter algorithms, but on wiser humans.

(Note: I wrote this with help from Co-pilot - like a class assignment. Claude came up with the post title. And CGPT for the image).

APA's PsycArticles contains more than 250,000 full text research articles in psychology but many of these articles have real world business implications relevant to researchers and students in academic disciplines outside psychology and social sciences.  

Anthropic's $1.5 Billion Bargain Bin

On the back of the proposed Anthropic copyright settlement there is almost certainly a long line forming outside the Association of American Publishers (AAP) headquarters to get a piece of the action. In the form of a large copyright penalty discount that is.

Despite the strong objection of Judge William Alsup, who has temporarily rejected the $1.5Billion settlement between Anthropic and a class of authors, this settlement agreement will probably survive. The rejection may appear to delay justice, but it also temporarily protects authors from a deeply flawed agreement that will undermine their long-term interests. While the payout is historic in scale, Judge Alsup rightly flagged concerns about vague documentation, inadequate notice, and the risk of coercing authors into a settlement they may neither fully understand nor meaningfully helped shape. His unease, with the potential for attorneys and organizations to pressure authors reflects a broader fear; that the settlement was more about expediency than equity.  When your professional advocates, in this case, the AAP and Authors Guild (AG) immediately endorse the settlement as a done deal that may not be coercive but it definitely represents pressure.

The case itself is unusually clear-cut. Unlike most AI copyright disputes, which hinge on the unsettled doctrine of fair use, this one involved Anthropic’s admitted use of pirated books from notorious sources like LibGen and PiLiMi. Judge Alsup’s ruling drew a sharp line—fair use may apply to lawfully acquired books, but piracy is indefensible. With an estimated 500,000 infringing works, statutory damages could have reached tens of billions of dollars. Yet the settlement proposed a flat $3,000 per work, a figure that risks – perhaps is already - becoming a de facto benchmark for future cases.  (By the way, fine print suggests the authors won’t actually receive $3,000 per work).

For authors, this would mean accepting a valuation of their work far below what the law allows, and far below what justice demands. Admittedly, in the stark reality of publishing, $3,000 is far more than most of those works are going to generate for their authors, but that is not the point. Copyright law exists to both protect copyright holders (authors) and heavily penalize those who breach copyright. That’s not happening here.

Anthropic’s financial strength further weakens the rationale for settlement. With a valuation projected to reach $170 billion the absurd notion that company is facing a “death knell” from litigation is undermined by the very recent funding rounds topping $10 billion, which proves investors do not consider any financial risks associated with this lawsuit. That should be compelling evidence that this settlement is not even a slap on the wrist.

Approving the settlement will allow Anthropic to sanitize its past misconduct without meaningful accountability, while leaving authors with a diluted remedy.  They should have held out and gone to trial to preserve the only meaningful leverage the authors can exert.

Ultimately, should Judge Alsup reject the settlement only then would this preserve the possibility of a more principled resolution—one that reflects the true value of authors’ work and the gravity of the infringement. Remember, Anthropic (and others) acted knowingly and with impunity to copy these works: With a degree of effort and market knowledge, they sought out these pirate sites precisely because they could get the content for ‘free’.

Rejecting the settlement also avoids setting a precedent that could weaken future copyright claims against AI developers. But while the line outside AAP offices is figurative, I can bet Facebook attorneys are ordering champagne all round this week. 

Authors deserve more than a rushed compromise shaped by corporate interests and vague processes. They deserve a legal framework that protects their rights in the age of machine learning. Until courts provide firmer guidance, the path forward should be cautious, deliberate, and above all, fair. This settlement is not that.

 

****

When the Google copyright case was in litigation, there was a lot of hyperventilation about the universe of 'orphan titles' which, in this highly referenced analysis, I suggested was overblown. We may find that the 500,000 works number cited in this agreement is over egged. 

****

Jimmy tried to force Howard to settle the Sandpiper litigation for all the wrong reasons. It led to Howard's unfortunate demise. 

Clarivate Reports 2Q results - Back on Track?

Clarivate, the information services firm, reported second-quarter results that, while not dazzling, suggest a business regaining its footing. Revenues reached $621 million, and the adjusted EBITDA margin rose to a respectable 41% for the first half—up 500 basis points year-on-year. Organic annual contract value edged up by 1.3%, and recurring organic revenue grew by nearly 1%, buoyed by robust subscription renewals and the rollout of new offerings.

The headline net loss of $72 million was largely the result of non-cash impairment charges, and on an adjusted basis, net income stood at $123 million. The firm announced they will seek to return up to $100 million to shareholders via buybacks and reiterated its full-year free cash flow guidance of $340 million.

Strategically, Clarivate is leaning into its strengths. Its Academic & Government and Life Sciences & Healthcare segments showed momentum, aided by AI-driven innovation and fresh partnerships. The Intellectual Property division, long a laggard, returned to growth—thanks in part to a surge in AI-related patent filings, especially from China.

Challenges remain. Divestitures and a sluggish commercialization market continue to weigh but management remains positive, touting its Value Creation Plan and a revamped sales model. The company reaffirmed its 2025 outlook, projecting revenues between $2.28 billion and $2.40 billion, and adjusted EBITDA between $940 million and $1 billion.

In short, Clarivate is not yet sprinting—but it is walking with purpose.

*********

The following are some comments from the investor call transcript. These comments are about the previously announced switch from a book purchase to book subscription model which generated a lot of push back from librarians (and other business initiatives):

“If you turn to Slide 8, I'll provide an update on the VCP starting with the A&G segment. Our proactive business model optimization, coupled with decades of experience in delivering data and analytics solution to our clients has strategically positioned us to anticipate and adapt to current market dynamics. We are on track to discontinue transactional sales of digital collections and books over the next year. This shift away from transactional sale is increasing recurring revenue growth by transitioning some of the business to the new progress e-Books product and other content solution subscription. We are pleased with the early adoption with over 70 wins to date and hundreds of customers currently evaluating this new model.”

“Following this A&G strategy, A&G subscription revenue now constitutes 93% of the total segment revenue, excluding disposals, up from 79% in the prior year period. In the first half of 2025, we have achieved a 96% renewal rate in A&G. This is impressive results considering the macro backdrop characterized by a reduction in the U.S. federal agency contracts, increased constraints on higher education research funding and potential additional university budget cuts. It is also noteworthy that as at the end of July, 75% of global A&G subscription for the full year has successfully renewed. This is in line with last year -- last year's renewal pace. We continue to successfully invest in innovation across the A&G product portfolio with a focus on AI. We are very pleased by our success so far in product launches and customer adoption. More than 4,800 institutions have already adopted our AI tools to strengthen research support, increase operational efficiency and enhance student engagement.”

“We are also accelerating progress with next-generation Agentic AI solution. AI agents can independently play and execute multistep processes by interacting with user with users, data sources and tools. The expansion of our Agentic AI platform marks a significant milestone as we implement responsible Agentic AI to accelerate research and learning workflow. Our initial launch of the literature review agent in Web of Science exemplify this pioneering approach. The agent converse with researchers to understand their research goals, then customize a specific literature review scope and define the proper output. This personal interactive experience keeps the researcher in the center, which closely mimic working with human assistant.”

“With regards to the content, as I mentioned in my discussion, we were forward looking, taking away the discretionary onetime expenditure, and this served us very, very well these days, and we see the uptake of customers who were initially complaining about taking away the onetime purchases are now buying more and more of our subscription businesses, the PQ ebook, the PQ Digital Collection, which actually serves them very, very well in this in this kind of economic climate. So we are pretty confident that going ahead, we will continue to see a good and decent renewal rates and uptake of the different A&G offering.”

Wiley Full Year Results Show Margin Improvement

For Wiley's Fiscal Year 2025 (ending April 30, 2025), the fourth quarter reported revenue was $443 million, essentially flat year-over-year when adjusted for divestitures, while full-year adjusted revenue was also essentially even. The company saw growth in its Research and Learning segments, particularly in academic courseware and AI licensing, but experienced softness in professional sales due to a weak retail market. Full-year adjusted EBITDA grew to $369 million (at constant currency), driven by cost savings and revenue performance in Research.

Wiley continues to experience robust growth across its Research and Learning segments with recurring revenue performing well, supported by strong research submissions and output. The India, Brazil, and China markets are showing significant revenue improvement and the business unit is seeing double-digit submission increases from the UK, France, Italy, and Canada. The Japan and the U.S. markets are contributing with high single-digit growth.

Open access publishing remains a key strategic initiative, with double-digit growth over the year. AS noted in previous announcements, Wiley has made notable strides in AI licensing, securing its third major AI model training customer in Q4 and generating $40 million in AI-related revenue for FY25. The company is expanding its corporate sector footprint through vertical-specific licensing agreements with technology, pharmaceutical, chemical companies, and a space agency. Strategic partnerships with Amazon Web Services and Perplexity are enhancing Wiley’s capabilities in research API development and AI integration.

In Higher Education, Wiley is seeing strong performance in digital and AI-driven offerings. AI licensing revenue reached $29 million, up 27% year-over-year, supported by both Academic and Professional backlists. Inclusive Access programs show strong double-digit growth and academic digital content and courseware are growing steadily.

Wiley is also innovating in assessments and team development, launching new products that combine personality models with training solutions. The company believes their thought leadership in AI development, research integrity, and accessibility positions them well for growth and an expanded presence in both the academic and corporate sectors.

More information from their press release:

FISCAL 2025 HIGHLIGHTS

• GAAP performance vs. prior year: Operating Income of $221 million vs. $52 million and Diluted Earnings Per Share (EPS) of $1.53 vs. ($3.65)
• Exceeded Adjusted EPS guidance, delivered at top end of range for Adjusted EBITDA margin, and achieved Free Cash Flow outlook
• Delivered Revenue and Adjusted EBITDA margin growth in both Research and Learning segments
• Achieved Adjusted Operating Margin expansion of 300 basis points
• Executed AI content licensing project this quarter with a third large tech company; $40 million in total AI licensing revenue realized in Fiscal 2025 compared to $23 million in Fiscal 2024
• Drove a 34% increase in share repurchases and raised dividend for 31 ^st consecutive year

Ava Gardner Beat Artie Shaw at Chess: Ava The Secret Conversations

Elizabeth McGovern, Photo by Jeff Lorch

Ava Gardiner didn't like a woman to swear. She fucking hated it. In Ava: The Secret Conversations Elizabeth McGovern embodies the life of Ava Gardner as her life story is coaxed out of her by writer Peter Evans (played by Aaron Costa Ganis) over the course of several weeks in 1988. Evans is badgered into getting the salacious out of Ava by an audio only Ed Victor who notes frequently that no less than Dick Snyder himself is paying attention to the writers' efforts. 

The play opens with a 2am call to Evans by Gardner where she seems to be contemplating suicide - and although this doesn't come up again in the play, the reason she has entertained the idea of selling her story at all is that she needs the money for her mortgage and is still suffering from the effects of a stroke. She's not in a good place, and she will question some of her life choices during these conversations. McGovern plays the role with her left arm mostly hanging limp except when the scenes fall back to reenact past events. As these events unfold the stage scene is boosted by the use of video images of past husbands Mickey Rooney, Artie Shaw and Frank Sinatra. Ganis will later break out into song.

It is Frank, that Synder desperately wants in this book and he presses, via the voice of Ed Victor, Evans to get the anatomical bits out of Ava. At the time, Sinatra had recently been the victim of the Kitty Kelly bio and Snyder knows how much anything about Sinatra would drive sales of this book. Even without Frank - who does feature, there is much to consider here about Ava Gardner: McGovern and Ganis are galvanizing in their respective roles. The set which represents Gardner's apartment in London is both sitting room and bedroom - the bed being obviously symbolic, is very well constructed and the multimedia images add significant context to the story.

As it turned out, Gardner threw Evans out before the manuscript was finished and it was only after she died in 1990 that Evans revisited the material and with the approval of the Gardner family the work was published. From this book, the play was conceived by McGovern and premiered at the Geffen Playhouse in 2023.

And yes, on the first occasion she did beat Artie Shaw at chess even though he was an expert. Go see it.

***** 

For those who don't know, Dick Synder was the long time CEO of Simon & Schuster and by accounts liked nothing better than his executive team to be in open combat with each other. Ed Victor, was a 'super-agent' sometimes known for influencing the telling of the story. 

 

Building an Intelligent Supply Chain in Publishing

The Book Industry Study Group is embarking on a Book Publishing Next initiative to rethink the publishing supply chain/ecosystem. See more at https://lnkd.in/eqemKjMW

It's a long time coming: Here is my thoughts on this from 2002!
https://lnkd.in/et3F6wPS

 

 

Building an Intelligent Supply Chain Frankfurt Supply Chain Interests Group 2002 from Michael Cairns

The Satire Bites...and Leaves a Mark

Don't we just love watching The Daily Show and Late Night and the skewering which takes place all in the name of fun? Sometimes this satirical "fake news" can cascade into the scatological - particularly The Daily Show commentaries, and new research published in The Journal of Experimental Psychology (and available via PsycNet subscription) demonstrates that satire can pack a punch and will frequently result in the dehumanization of the target.

Long considered the harmless cousin of criticism, satire may in fact be the more dangerous sibling. A recent study entitled Softening the blow or sharpening the blade: Examining the reputational effects of satire. by Hooria Jazaieri (Santa Clara University) and Derek D. Rucker (Northwestern University) suggests that satire, despite its comedic veneer, inflicts greater reputational damage than direct critique. The authors set out to test two hypotheses: Does satire soften the blow or does it negatively sharpen the impact. Their findings favor the latter.

The study examined how satirical content—memes, videos, and commentary—affects public perception. Participants exposed to satirical portrayals of individuals, both real and fictional, consistently rated those individuals less favorably than those exposed to straightforward criticism. Satire, it turns out, does not merely mock—it dehumanizes.

Read a profile of Stewart in a recent Poynter article - When Satire became trusted news.

A linguistic analysis of more than 100,000 YouTube comments revealed that satire prompted viewers to use language that stripped its targets of human qualities. This dehumanization, measured using the Mind Attribution Scale, was found to mediate the reputational harm. In short, satire makes people seem less capable of thought, emotion and agency—and thus less worthy of respect. (Note: The Mind Attribution Scale (MAS) is a questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which individuals attribute mental states, specifically agency and experience to others). 

To determine whether there exists a counter to this impact, the researchers tested a psychological intervention: asking participants to imagine a pleasant interaction with the satirical target. This brief exercise, lasting no more than two minutes, significantly reduced the reputational damage. The imagined contact restored perceptions of the target’s humanity, blunting satire’s sting.

So, consider this 'mission accomplished?' In an age where satire proliferates across social media and entertainment platforms, its reputational consequences are often overlooked - although, some could also argue undermining reputationally and otherwise is the objective. The researchers argue that far from being a benign form of commentary, satire is a potent weapon—one that shapes public opinion more effectively than direct criticism. The ethical ramifications are considerable, particularly when satire targets individuals unable to respond or defend themselves.

APA's PsycArticles contains more than 250,000 full text research articles in psychology but many of these articles have real world business implications relevant to researchers and students in academic disciplines outside psychology and social sciences.  

 

Only Fools and Horses: How one of the funniest scenes got done

This week on British morning television, Sir David Jason retold the story about producing one of UK TV's funniest scenes.  F&H is one of the most loved UK shows and was rumored to be in consideration for a US version - which thankfully never happened.

And here is the full clip from YouTube.

Do AI Tools Harken the Death of the Academic Subscription?

The late show with Steven Colbert is cancelled and, like me you may be spluttering with anger over another CBS sell out, but the reason why this show was cancelled had more to do with the combination of money, demographics and highlight reels and less the thin skinned dear leader.

When Johnny Carson was at the height of popularity he regularly pulled in 11million viewers per night and if you missed the show, you were out of luck at the water cooler the next day. In 1975, Carson’s show made about $300MM in today’s dollars. Today Colbert brings in just about 2MM viewers and according to CBS losses $40MM a year. As if that’s not enough, Colbert also has demographics and the highlight reel working against him.

Today’s younger audiences are not predisposed to appointment TV and do not watch Colbert at 11:30 each night. They may, however, see the highlight reels in any number of places but the joke is on the content provider. These highlights aren’t monetized, and it is now much too late to fix what seemed like a really good idea at the time: to break the show into funny bits to drive traffic to watch the whole thing. That model, now proven broken, only benefits Google, Yahoo, Ticktock and other ‘channels.

In academic publishing we may be on track to make a similar catastrophic mistake in allowing our content to be programmatically snipped into ‘key takeaways’ and ‘two paragraph summaries’.  As AI tools fast become standard in search, traffic to the full text of research articles is showing the early signs of a significant dislocation. Traffic counted as ‘inquiries’ – generated by AI – is increasing. Pretty soon, just like Colbert all the best jokes are going to be free before the show is even over and these jokes will not have driven more traffic to the full show. Replace ‘joke’ with ‘research’ and publishers will soon have some explaining to do to the librarian about the collapse of full text retrievals.

It may be impossible to change the dynamic, but publishers must consider collecting transaction fees from these search partners for each of the AI ‘inquiries’ they perform. Otherwise, I think this may mark the beginning of the end for the subscription model. Contributing to this is the march of consumer preference, which as in the Colbert example above, young researchers are not methodically collecting 200 research articles and working through each: No, they use AI on 1000 instead and generate summaries, cross references and a draft paper within a fraction of the time. Publishers’ value add becomes frayed in this scenario.

It may seem strange to draw comparisons between a television show and academic research, but the changing dynamics are similar. Consider these and how they might apply to academic publishing,

• Pressure on legacy media: Colbert ad revenue dropped $20MM between 2024 and 2025 while viewership in the key 18-49 age bracket fell by 20%. Academic researchers 18 – 49 are our key demographic and they be different in their behavior

• Market fragmentation and platform shifts: Colbert’s monologues and segments go viral online but these don’t generate revenue like traditional TV ads. Without ads (read subscription) there is no economic model.
• Decline of linear viewing: User behavior has radically changed in the past 20 years and media consumption is far more driven by on-demand and at-convenience such that the consumer of media (read “researcher”) is in charge.
• Strategic realignment: Just like CBS and other media companies are realigning so are academic publishers and technology companies forming alliances which may redefine how academic publishers create value. There is likely to be more consolidation rather than less in academic publishing as strategic realignment takes shape.

Publishers need to be very wary of how they work with AI companies and search companies with embedded AI tools. On the surface, this functionality benefits the researcher and at least in the short term makes publishers seem tech savvy and accommodating of researcher needs. However, if researchers can retrieve data, information and research with significantly less effort the value proposition – regardless how cynical that sounds – for the publisher begins to erode. 

With some of the strongest media properties such as Netflix, Apple + and HBO now protected behind subscription walls (in contrast to legacy television), it would be ironic if academic publishers which started from this place of significant strength gave it all away by letting in the AI Trojan horse. Many publishers may also believe they have 'channel' strength when in fact they may have more 'brand' strength where researchers form stronger bonds with specific journal titles. Behind the paywall, perhaps more can be done to foster this brand strength and thus make the 'channel' even stronger. With respect to working with AI and LLMs , one of my colleagues said the other day, “I don’t know if I am shooting myself in the foot or the face”. 

If you have your own subscription platform, keep pace with AI functionality, engage in a broader manner with users but don’t let the horse in.

Fan Fiction: What Writes Better, Simple or Complex? (From PsycArticles)

I am reading a short book on "Simplicity" and the relationship between simplicity and complexity and thought I would also do some research on PsycNet to see what recent research existed. As it happened I found the following article on Fan Fiction (topically of interest). Turns out the more complex the fan fiction story the better it is reviewed and read!

 

APA's PsycArticles contains more than 250,000 full text research articles in psychology but many of these articles have real world business implications relevant to researchers and students in academic disciplines outside psychology and social sciences.  

 

The Diamonds and the Dross: A Quantitative Exploration of Integrative Complexity in Fan fiction by Hayley McCullough investigates the psychological and linguistic characteristics of fan fiction by analyzing its integrative complexity, measuring how well a text recognizes and integrates multiple perspectives. McCullough's research compared 45 popular and 45 unpopular fan fictions from the Archive of Our Own (AO3) platform, using "Hits" (views) and "Kudos" (community approval) as metrics for popularity.

 

Contrary to expectation, that popular fan fiction would show lower complexity—a trend observed in other pop culture domains like film—the study revealed that popular fan fiction consistently scored higher in all forms of complexity across various categories. The finding suggests fan fiction readers prefer more thought provoking and nuanced narratives, which was found regardless whether popularity was measured by views or community approval. The researchers concluded that there is a robust preference for complexity in fan fiction.

 

The article proposes several explanations for this unexpected trend:

• The text-based nature of fan fiction may encourage more complex storytelling (in the absence of visual cues).
• Fan fiction's role as a form of cultural critique. This resonates with the idea that content, including (fan) fiction, often provides insight into complex real-world issues.
• A desire among fans to explore underrepresented identities and perspectives. This can be seen in popular characters like Stieg Larsson's Lisbeth Salander, who was potentially inspired by a "grown-up Pippi Longstocking" and represents a "dysfunctional girl" who nonetheless directs her own destiny, hinting at the appeal of complex and non-traditional identities.

I have explored the fan fiction 'marketplace' a few times on PND and the researchers also reference well known examples including Harry Potter fan websites such as MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron where fans move the Harry Potter story in new directions and different directions (sometimes, not always supported by Rowling). Many of these popular fan sites provide vigorous and unedited feedback to authors which, while potentially intimidating, creates an environment which encourages quality. 

 

The Implications for Publishers: Publishers are encouraged to "engage deeply where it matters" within fan fiction communities rather than just marketing to them as readers rather than content creators. CompletelyNovel.com uses reviews, ratings, and sales data from the social web to help authors prove market viability, demonstrate how community feedback can influence success, and model of "post-publication peer review," where readers assess content quality, aligns with the community-driven nature of fan fiction communities. The research conducted suggests that platforms and content communities that filter for complex or nuanced narratives would be highly valued by readers and creators. 

 

In summary, successful fan fiction is likely to be more complex suggesting a strong appetite for intellectually stimulating content, in turn suggesting commercialization should emphasize deeper more thought provoking story lines, character development and cultural complexity. As the authors note in their closing that there may be more to do to understand fan fiction and the implications of their research: 

As previously discussed, fan fiction as a research topic has been a largely ignored by researchers and scholars outside the qualitative humanities’ scholarship, and only a few studies focus specifically on examining and understanding the underlining psychology of fan fiction, most notably Vinney and Dill-Shackleford (2018). Alongside that article, these studies begin filling this particularly research gap and provides a strong foundation going forward. It is the responsibility of future researcher to continue filling the research gap and build up these studies.

More from APA PsycNet on "Fan Fiction":

Strange new worlds: Social content in popular Star Trek fan fiction versus commercial novels

Fan fiction as a vehicle for meaning making: Eudaimonic appreciation, hedonic enjoyment, and other perspectives on fan engagement with television.

Towards an AI Governance Stucture for Business

APA's PsycArticles contains more than 250,000 full text research articles in psychology but many of these articles have real world business implications relevant to researchers and students in academic disciplines outside psychology and social sciences. Here is an interesting example on Artificial Intelligence.

A recently published article in Artificial Intelligence and Organizational Strategy: Ethical and Governance Implications by Larry W. Norton (Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol 77(2), Jun 2025, 131-141) addresses not just how AI will fundamentally redefine work but how we must implement governance and take management responsibility to manage outcomes – both intended and unintended.

As Norton’s research makes clear, AI is not just about automation; AI is shaping strategy, driving innovation, and changing the definition of everything from customer value to product development. Referencing several AI use cases including CapitalOne and Mayo Clinic, Norton proffers that if you’re not thinking about AI strategically, you’re already behind.

There are real risks—algorithmic bias, data privacy, even unintended societal harm and the article is clear we need to be smart about how AI is deployed, balancing the pursuit of profit with responsible implementation, starting with low-risk, high-impact use cases and scaling up responsibly as capabilities mature. Even a casual awareness of how AI has dominated recent business and economic commentary would make clear that we must be smart about how AI is deployed.  This is where Norton offers a formula – based on research – for corporations to manage their AI implementations and make governance not simply a ‘nice to have’ but a business imperative.

The author lays out what effective AI governance looks like: everything from ensuring data quality to having clear stakeholder accountability, regulatory compliance and crucially, ethical oversight. Norton references established frameworks like the National Institute of Standards andTechnology’s AI Risk Management Framework and the IEEE’s Ethically Aligned Design, stressing transparency, explainability, fairness, and accountability in AI systems.

Norton suggests three key recommendations:

• treat AI risk mitigation as a competitive differentiator,
• tailor governance models to the ethical and business risks of specific AI applications,
• start small and scale responsibly

He also calls for increased AI literacy among consultants and organizational leaders, arguing that understanding AI’s capabilities and limitations are essential for ethical and effective deployment and significantly that AI oversight needs to go right up to board level particularly in firms where AI development and/or implementation is central to the business strategy.

Find this article: Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol 77(2), Jun 2025, 131-141 

A sample of further PsycArticle readings on the intersection of psychology and Artificial Intelligence  include:

• How and for whom using generative AI affects creativity: A field experiment. 
• Unethical and harmful effects of artificial intelligence on human interactions and well-being: What organizational consultants can do.
• Consultants’ and managers’ ethical and legal responsibilities in artificial intelligence applications.

More information about APA products and subscription options is located here.