I love it when I forget that I submitted something and then I get a letter of acceptance!

My paper on distributed narrative, the revised, 10 page version of what I presented at AoIR in September, has been accepted for publication in the Association of Internet Researchers Annual! That’s a real book with just a selection of the papers that were presented at the conference. The second annual’s not out yet, but this is what the first annual looks like. My paper will be in the third annual.

I have to make some small changes. Make the intro less abrupt, make some colloquialisms easier for non-natives to understand, I forgot to put Gibson in the bibliography, that sort of thing, nothing big. I’m so glad I forced myself to rewrite the paper and send it in, even though I assumed it wouldn’t be accepted.

Ooh, this makes me all eager to do more work on distributed narratives! There’s been no research in my life this month. All my time has been spent on teaching, coordinating, organising and you know, stuff that has to be done and is quite interesting in its own ways, but leaves no space over for reading, thinking and writing.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “my paper’s in the third AoIR annual!

  1. Wilson

    You know, you scared me for a moment, there. I though the AoIR in your text was the Annals of Improbable Research (www.improbable.com)…

  2. orangemcm.

    hey.
    i dropped in your blog via ethno::log, where your phd thesis has been linked
    (im student in bremen, germany and researching on scientific concepts of virtual reality) and just wanted to say: congrats! the a(o)ir annual seems to me being a great means to b published through. moreover i get encouraged to put more serious- and selfconsciousness on my work.

    regards,
    orange.

  3. […] finishing up – well, not research exactly. Just getting permissions to reprint pictures in my paper on distributed narrative for the AoIR Annual, which has taken an hour because of its stickliness. See, even r […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]