Open-access academic publisher with more than 1,700 disciplines covered across its journals. Every published article is free to read and download in full, with no account needed.
Why I recommend it: Free for readers, but not free for authors: Frontiers charges researchers a publishing fee, and that model has drawn criticism over review quality. Read individual papers on their merits and check who funded the work.
A peer-reviewed study in Frontiers in Psychology comparing how the working alliance — the collaborative client–coach relationship linked to coaching effectiveness — develops in a single session with an AI coach versus a human coach. Open access.
Open-access study in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence on how workers' career satisfaction holds up as AI enters their jobs, and why feeling supported by an employer does not fully cushion the effect over time.
From the site: IntroductionThe growing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the workplace is reshaping employees’ perceptions of job and career stability, poten...
Why I recommend it: Useful if you are coaching people through AI-driven change at work: the finding is that reassurance from an employer alone does not protect long-term satisfaction. Peer-reviewed and free to read in full.
#AI at work#research#careers#job satisfaction
FrontiersAdded Sep 18, 20260 opens
Related in the library
Other resources that share this publication's topics.
A free, open platform where machine-learning researchers submit and peer-review papers in public. Much of the field's conference review (including major AI venues) runs on it, and anyone can read the papers, reviews and rebuttals.
A 2024 open-access article in Big Data & Society by Kerry McInerney arguing that the "AI arms race" narrative between the United States and China is deeply racialized, building on "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric and older anti-Asian tropes such as techno-Orientalism and the Yellow Peril. The author coins "Yellow Techno-Peril" and offers recommendations for policymakers, journalists, and media organizations. Free to read (open access).
Why I recommend it: The arms-race framing shows up constantly in AI coverage. This paper names what that framing carries with it and gives concrete guidance for talking about competition without the racialized baggage.
A July 2026 open-access article in the Cambridge Forum on Technology and Global Affairs by Elisabeth Siegel (University of Oxford) examining how "hybrid epistemic experts" — figures straddling technical expertise, corporate leadership, and policy influence, with Eric Schmidt as the central case — constructed and amplified the "U.S.–China AI Race" narrative between 2015 and 2023. The article raises concerns about democratic governance and the concentration of AI knowledge production in private hands. Free to read (open access).
Why I recommend it: Explains how the AI race narrative was built by people who sit in boardrooms and policy rooms at the same time. Read it alongside the Yellow Techno-Peril paper for two complementary critiques of the same framing.
A library guide tracking major academic publishers' policies on AI use in research and writing, including rules on AI authorship, disclosure requirements and image generation, with links to each publisher's policy.
Open-access paper in AI & Society (2023) by Andrew Dana Hudson, Ed Finn, and Ruth Wylie. Draws on expert interviews and an analysis of nearly 100 science fiction stories to examine how popular AI narratives shape technology policy.
Peer-reviewed paper in Entropy (28 May 2024) by Hartmut Neven and Adam Zalcman of Google Quantum AI with Christof Koch of the Allen Institute and others, proposing that conscious experience arises whenever a quantum superposition forms, and laying out quantum-biology experiments to test the idea. Open access; the full text is free at PubMed Central (PMC11203236).
Why I recommend it: Useful when someone claims AI is or isn't conscious: this is what a serious proposal on the question actually looks like — a conjecture with proposed experiments, not a verdict. Note the authors' own disclosures: two work for Google and one has a financial interest in a consciousness-measuring device.
