Figure 3
This figure compares the lifecycle of traditional scientific publishing with that of an L L M-driven Agentic Publication system, highlighting structural, temporal, and functional differences. In the traditional model, research progresses through manuscript drafting, journal submission, peer review, revision, and eventual publication. The final output is a static paper, often restricted by paywalls, that serves as a snapshot of knowledge at a specific moment in time. Corrections, updates, or extensions typically require new publications, leading to fragmented knowledge dissemination. In contrast, the Agentic Publication model begins with the integration of research outputs directly into a structured knowledge system. Validation occurs through a combination of automated checks, provenance tracking, and human oversight rather than a single discrete review event. The publication exists as a continuously accessible knowledge object that can be queried, updated, and extended without disrupting access to prior versions. The figure emphasizes continuous knowledge flow rather than episodic release. Updates, corrections, and refinements are incorporated through governance mechanisms that manage versioning, accountability, and scientific integrity. Interactive access replaces passive reading, enabling users to retrieve precisely the information they need when they need it. The comparison illustrates a shift from static, document-bound dissemination to a dynamic model of scientific communication that supports reuse, transparency, and long-term knowledge evolution.Scientific knowledge workflow: Traditional versus LLM-driven agentic publication system