I attempt to write one quantitative paper in six days, using AI tools and web search, without consulting a single human being about it. Every hour is streamed. The recording becomes the material for a second paper.
Eighteen tasks, estimated at 36.75 hours before the week began. The bar is weighted by those estimates, so a long task moves it further than a short one, and nothing counts until it is finished. This is the board that appears on the stream.
I take the ferry out to Chi Ma Wan and start recording. From that point I have no contact with my co-authors, my colleagues or anyone else in the research community until the recording stops.
I open the broadcast by explaining what the paper is supposed to be and what I think is most likely to go wrong. Then I put the first question to a model on camera.
I write during the day, from eight in the morning until six in the evening, Hong Kong time. The stream is unedited, so you will see the prompts I write, the answers I throw away, the dead ends I follow, and the long stretches where very little happens.
These are casual hangouts with colleagues and viewers about academic writing with AI, and anyone watching can ask a question while we are live. Nobody helps me with my own paper.
I leave with whatever I have managed to write. It might be a finished draft, it might be half of one, and it might be a cautionary tale. I will publish it either way.
All three of us watch the footage on our own and then compare what we found. Two of my co-authors take no part in the writing week, so their reading acts as a check on my account of my own process.
Stay tuned to find out.
Can I write an academic paper that survives desk rejection at a Scopus-indexed journal?
If it works
Lamb chops, marinated twice over 48 hours, in Central. Eaten alone, on camera, with no one to split the bill with.
If it doesn't
Reviewing, letters, discussant duty — whatever is asked, until the hours are paid. Also livestreamed, in full.