Ashutosh Ghildiyal is Vice President of Growth and Strategy at Integra. Over the past two decades, he has worked with researchers, institutions, scholarly societies, and publishers across Asia, Europe, and North America. Throughout his career, he has held leadership roles in marketing and business development at author services and publishing technology companies, helping build strategic partnerships, launch innovative solutions, and drive growth in global markets.
His writing explores the future of scholarly communication, with a particular interest in artificial intelligence, research integrity, peer review, publishing strategy, and how scholarly publishing can better accelerate the translation of knowledge into meaningful societal impact. He is actively involved in the scholarly publishing community through advisory, governance, and committee roles with organizations including the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP). He holds an MBA from Deakin University, Australia.
The views expressed on The Scholarly Kitchen are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
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.
Open Science 2.0 must focus not only on access, but also on trust, interpretation, learning, and effective communication. The challenge facing the scholarly publishing ecosystem is ensuring that what is open is also trustworthy, understandable, and genuinely useful.
The future of scholarly communication will not be determined by how powerful AI becomes, but by whether the research community remains clear about the purpose those capabilities are meant to serve and whether it can govern them together.
The Chefs offer their reflections on last week’s SSP Annual Meeting.
China’s publishing ambitions create genuine competitive pressures, but they also open opportunities for collaboration and highlight challenges that neither side can address alone
China is no longer simply a major contributor to global research output; it is increasingly becoming a key force shaping the future of scholarly publishing. Understanding what is actually happening, and why, is the necessary first step before considering how publishers should respond.
Research disciplines require institutions that create cohesion, uphold standards, and provide continuity over time. Scholarly societies are uniquely positioned to serve that role credibly and durably.
Today’s Mental Health Awareness Monday reflects on the need for validation in publishing careers, and how we might reduce unnecessary pressure on performance while preserving rigor.
AI in science should not be viewed merely as a productivity tool layered onto existing workflows. It represents a structural shift in how knowledge moves through society, and therefore in how scientific authority is established and maintained.
There is more and more skepticism toward the role of publishers, a steady commoditization of publishing services, and growing fragmentation across the research ecosystem. If that is the case, the question is no longer what publishers do, but how that value is understood and extended.
Today’s guest blogger identifies signals of how fractured the scholarly research ecosystem has become, and how the value publishers provide is increasingly questioned, dismissed, or overlooked by key stakeholders.
Today’s guest bloggers assert that the future of the scholarly publishing depends on mastering science communication with the same rigor that global consumer brands apply to marketing.
Today’s guest bloggers reflect on the experience of “imposter syndrome” and how we might adopt a new approach to moments of uncertainty and change.
Today’s guest blogger sees scholarly publishing at a critical inflection point and research suffering from a flawed incentive structure. Can systems thinking offer innovative solutions?