What’s Hot and Cooking In Scholarly Publishing
Generative AI has made language tools ubiquitous, but it introduces risks of homogenized texts and semantic slippage.
In today’s Mental Health Monday post, Ja’Nya Jenoch, a licensed mental health counselor, professor, author, and health researcher, takes us through the history of maternal mental health, unpacks terms such as postpartum depression and maternal separation anxiety, and explores the complex systems and pressures that shape the experiences of many mothers.
Closing out Peer Review Week 2026, today’s post suggests that research novelty and capacity for innovation should be given greater priority than clarity and comprehensiveness in peer review.
What if the systems designed to protect scientific rigor are also making it harder for new ideas to emerge? Do different scholarly contributions deserve unique forms of evaluation?
Today’s Peer Review Week post is a Kitchen Essentials interview with Daniela Saderi, Executive Director of PREreview.
Today’s guest post asks what about our current peer review system is worth saving and if we’re able to establish one that protects editorial judgment and preserves research integrity.
For Peer Review Week 2026, we asked the Chefs two questions: What is one uncomfortable truth about peer review that the scholarly publishing community doesn’t talk about enough? And, beyond recruiting more reviewers, what conversation about peer review capacity are we overlooking?
Today’s guest post challenges our community to face tendencies toward groupthink and address the incentive structures that resist adaptation and innovation.
The US Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the copyright infringement litigation between The New York Times and OpenAI and Microsoft, et. al., largely siding with the AI companies and strongly favoring the notion of LLM training as fair use. We asked the chefs for their thoughts.
The journal portfolio, platform, or membership is no longer enough, as AI transforms how research is discovered and consumed. How will your organization adapt?
Today’s interview with Sylvia Chou and Alexa Romberg, formerly of NIH, sheds some light on censorship at the agency and the damage it’s doing to health research.
Today, we learn what’s in store for this year’s fall seminar from SSP.
Today’s guest bloggers posit four important trends in scholarly communications that our community should be ready to tackle.
As AI research assistants learn our preferences, they may also become better at mirroring our assumptions. Avoiding that outcome will require more than a better prompt.
The opportunity presented by AI is not to remove the human layer of scholarship. It is to recognize why that layer has always mattered.
Identifying AI content is now embedded in Claude models. It doesn’t solve the problem we have. It also creates others.