As with previous shifts in content discovery, today’s winners will be those who understand the strengths and limits of AI search, and design systems that let researchers move fluidly between precision and synthesis.
To close out 2025, we asked the Chefs: What would you ask for from Academic Publishing Santa?
Rather than just bolting on AI to existing publication workflows,there is a real opportunity to rethink and redesign them for human–AI collaboration. Some thoughts on what that looks like in practice.
The future of peer review isn’t about choosing between humans and AI, or between speed and quality, but about combining the strengths of both to enable speed with quality, to ensure quality, ethics, and trust in the scholarly record.
To kick off Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs, What’s a bold experiment with AI in peer review you’d like to see tested?
Summing up the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Forum discussion on Emerging AI Dilemmas in Scholarly Publishing, which explored the many challenges AI presents for the scholarly community.
At the 3rd Generative AI Summit in London, global leaders and companies shared how they’re embedding generative AI into strategies, workflows, and products for commercial success, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. Here, we’d like to share key takeaways and insights from multiple perspectives and explore what they mean for publishers.
A focus on four rising technology trends and the challenges and opportunities they might bring to scholarly communications.
As artificial intelligence begins to play an ever-bigger role in the scholarly publishing landscape, how might it help solve some of the biggest challenges facing publishers?
Leading into Peer Review Week 2024, we ask the Chefs: What is, or would be, the most valuable innovation in peer review for your community?
How is generative AI moving us towards conversational discovery and what does this mean for publishing and future trends in information discovery?
In this post – the first of two discussing artificial intelligence and information discovery – we explore the evolution of information discovery, its role in the research journey, and how it can be applied to help researchers and publishers alike.
Separately, both open research and AI are considered disrupters, causes of disorder in the normal continuance of scholarly publishing. But approaching them in a synchronized way can offer more productivity gains and efficiencies than taking them on individually.
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
To identify both benefits and risks of generative AI for our industry, we tested ChatGPT and Google Bard for authoring, for submission and reviews, for publishing, and for discovery and dissemination.