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.
Building robust citation and attribution into generative AI systems are foundational to usage, credit and trust. We need to expect more from AI.
A German court ruled against a mandatory article deposit requirement under Germany’s “secondary publication right” (SPR). Whatever the intentions, SPR is mainly going to contribute to the degradation of the record of science.
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.
For scholarly publishers, the user has changed faster than the systems designed to serve them, and the gap between the two is where most of the difficult work is happening.
Today’s guest post asserts that trust won’t be restored by “better messaging” alone, but via better incentives, more disciplined public communication, and really listening to the people who have walked away from us.
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.
Guest blogger Jonny Coates looks at Richard Poynder’s post-mortem on the Open Access movement, and uses it as a framework to ask questions about the future of preprints.
Faced with technological shifts not seen since the advent of the internet, Todd Toler and Angela Cochran posit that the biggest challenges for organizations building an AI strategy are human, not technology.
In this post, Robert attempts to embrace a gloomy optimism as he muses on the state of publishing at scholarly societies.
How are two competing neuroscience journals faring since the editorial board of one departed to create the other?
Today’s guest author raises the question of whether a researcher submitting an article that was significantly drafted by an LLM without clear disclosure is effectively engaging in a contemporary form of ghost authorship.
Since every possible method and model of scholarly communication is imperfect, a healthy scholarly ecosystem must be pluralistic, providing space for experimentation and for a diversity of methods, models, and philosophies to coexist.