What’s Hot and Cooking In Scholarly Publishing
From 19th-century beef tea to paper mills and generative AI, the challenge is no longer detection alone; it is preventing bad claims from becoming embedded knowledge.
Today’s guest post asks: Do trust markers and other systematic fraud-prevention practices exclude unaffiliated authors from contributing to the scholarly record?
The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and meaning.
AI is now a permanent feature of the scholarly landscape. The question is no longer whether it should be used, but how it should be understood and governed.
Today Alice Meadows interviews Jennifer Fleet (Aries Systems) and Christian Gruback (ChronosHub) about changing author needs and how their recently announced partnership is an effort to address them.
An interview with Natalie Ridgway about new guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Whether peer review needs revolution or evolution may be the wrong question. The more pressing one is whether the academic community is prepared to let scientific ideas be published, contested, and refined in public, rather than behind closed doors.
Publishing infrastructure shapes careers. It shapes what questions get asked, what research gets validated, and whose voices enter the global scholarly conversation. As the scholarly publishing market continues to consolidate, how does that impact different communities in different ways?
What happens then to “author voice,” which has always been an important consideration to authors and reviewers alike, if AI is helping researchers with their writing?
How has the social media landscape in scholarly communications changed, according to data from the recent Pulse Check, past community surveys, and checked real, live marketers?
Today, we asked the community: What key message(s) do you want policymakers to take from the responses submitted to the OMB?
New OMB Guidance threatens the important Title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs. Comment period ends today, please add your voice!
Today’s guest post warns the community that, in the AI era, we cannot keep building the pieces that lay the foundation and letting someone else own what gets built on top of it.
Research integrity demands stronger safeguards in order to protect the scholarly record. But for editors, when new integrity measures are introduced, they do not replace existing tasks; they are added alongside them, compounding workloads and responsibilities.
Models for funding open access journal article publishing can be sorted into three categories, organized by who pays and what they pay for: transactional, collective action, and subvention.
This post is part of a special collaboration between The Scholarly Kitchen’s Mental Health Mondays and EON’s I AM EDITOR. United by a shared commitment to the people who have been called to scholarly publishing, this partnership seeks to amplify conversations about mental health, reduce stigma, and nurture a more supportive, resilient, and connected professional community.