Combinatorial Epistemology: Automated Mass-Generation of Scholarly Manuscripts and the Structural Infeasibility of Gratuitous Peer Review

Contemporary scientific publishing relies on an antiquated, human-dependent validation framework known as peer review. In this paper, we demonstrate that by fully automating the procedural generation of scholarly manuscripts through combinatorial software algorithms, we eliminate the human authorial component entirely. We argue that the fundamental vulnerability of the current paradigm lies in the gratuitous (unpaid) and inherently biased nature of human review, which is structurally incapable of absorbing an infinite output stream generated by automated systems. Consequently, the peer-review bottleneck transforms from a quality control mechanism into a systemic point of failure for institutional science.