15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?

Purpose: This study developed a comprehensive database of presentation abstracts from the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) Annual Conference and examined patterns in research methodology, authorship, collaboration, and institutional participation over two decades. Method: Abstract metadata was compiled from the SSWR Confex conference management system for presentations from 2005 to 2026 using web scraping. A small language model (gpt-oss:20b) performed classification and extraction tasks on abstracts, including categorization of methodologies and parsing of author affiliations, with human review at each major stage to ensure accuracy. Results: The database contains 23,793 presentations with 69,924 author records representing 20,779 unique researchers from 4,049 institutions across 93 countries. Annual conference presentations increased from 423 in 2005 to 1,935 in 2026, representing a compound annual growth rate of 7.5%. Quantitative methods predominated (61.1%), followed by qualitative approaches (23.4%), mixed methods (9.1%), and reviews (5.4%). The mean number of authors per presentation increased from 2.22 in 2005 to 3.31 in 2026. International participation grew from 4.5% to 13.5% of author affiliations over the observation period. Discussion: Findings indicate substantial growth in SSWR conference participation, alongside increased collaboration and international engagement. The methodological distribution reveals continued quantitative predominance with growing qualitative representation. This database provides research infrastructure for systematic hypothesis testing about research priorities and disciplinary development over time, enabling analyses that inform both scholarship and conference planning.

The implicit policy of maintaining relatively stable acceptance rates at top AI conferences, despite exponentially growing submissions, introduces a critical structural vulnerability. This position paper characterizes a new systemic threat we term Agentic Denominator Gaming, in which a malicious actor deploys AI agents to generate and submit a large volume of superficially plausible but low-quality papers. Crucially, their objective is not the acceptance of low-quality papers, but rather to inflate the submission denominator and overwhelm reviewing capacity. Under a relatively stable acceptance rate, this dilution can systematically increase the publication probability of a small, targeted set of legitimate papers. We analyze the practical feasibility of this threat and its broader consequences, including intensified reviewer burnout, degraded review quality, and the emergence of industrialized automated agent mills. Finally, we propose and evaluate a range of mitigation strategies, and argue that durable protection will require system-level policy and incentive reforms, rather than relying primarily on technical detection alone.

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Orchestra-Research/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact.