Roohi Ghosh is the ambassador for researcher success at Cactus Communications (CACTUS). She is passionate about advocating for researchers and amplifying their voices on a global stage. With over 17 years of experience in the field, she understands the unique challenges that researchers face and the importance of their work in advancing knowledge and improving society. Through strategic outreach and engagement efforts, she works to build bridges between researchers and other stakeholders in academia to foster productive partnerships that lead to greater success and impact for the research community. She co-chairs the Peer Review Week committee, ALPSP’s Open Peer Review Special Interest Group and the EASE India Chapter and serves on various other committees, including the Scholarly Kitchen Cabinet.
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?
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?
Today’s post asks: If research is increasingly accessed through AI-generated summaries rather than via primary sources, then what does it mean to “engage with research” at all?
Today, we share the results of a global community poll that produced the theme for Peer Review Week 2026 (14–18 September): “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed and Quality.”
Most people in academic careers will at some point be faced with parenting and/or caregiving responsibilities. But is academia designed to support caregivers and parents?
To close out 2025, we asked the Chefs: What would you ask for from Academic Publishing Santa?
We talk a lot about AI in scholarly communications and publishing, but today, we ask the Chefs: What’s your favorite AI hack?
Each new change in scholarly communication promises to make research fairer, faster, more transparent. Yet, in many cases, researchers, especially from under resourced countries or from countries where English is not the first language, face added pressure to catch up, rather than to move forward.
Today, we talk to thought leaders Helen King and Chris Leonard, who offer a nuanced look at how peer review might adapt, fracture, or reinvent itself in the AI era.
Summer has officially become a time to catch up on writing, editing, reviewing, hiring, upskilling, compliance, and all the administrative work that you kept putting off throughout the year. Is the idea of “summer break” just a lie we tell ourselves?
We are pleased to announce the official theme for Peer Review Week 2025, to be held from 15–19 September 2025.
Reverse delegation, a cycle where tasks flow back to the leader of an organization or team, can be difficult to overcome, particularly in academia.
Adapting to AI requires a commitment to fostering AI literacy and creating spaces to openly discuss its challenges and implications.
My glass of optimism is usually full. But my glass is leaking now, or maybe it’s broken? The realities of the new political landscape have cast its shadow on the future of academia.
A relentless push for growth can lead to burnout among authors, editors, and reviewers, while also placing undue pressure on organizations to maintain high levels of output. How can we better provide the infrastructure and support systems needed to sustain that growth over the long term.