The Emotional Rollercoaster of Scholarly Publishing
Today, we take an emotional journey through scholarly publishing and aim to understand how emotions impact authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ experiences in the scholarly communications lifecycle.
Today, we take an emotional journey through scholarly publishing and aim to understand how emotions impact authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ experiences in the scholarly communications lifecycle.
Today’s post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
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.
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.
New guidance from the US government on research funding makes publishing and journal subscription costs unallowable.
With CC Signals, Creative Commons wants to help authors put rules on use of their licensed content for AI training. The problem is, one of the licenses already permits free and unlimited reuse of that content, for any and all purposes. And the licenses are irrevocable.
Today, we feature a friendly debate on the question: which parts of the research lifecycle should be more automated, and which require more of a human touch — and why?
The threat of zero-click search makes organizational brand more important than ever and presents a huge opportunity.
ScholarOne saw a submission surge in the first quarter of 2026 — evidence that AI is increasing the strain on peer review’s social contract with researchers.
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.
Today’s post calls for collective action to address the researcher identity verification gap in scholarly communications and champions STM’s Researcher identity group.
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.
Wendy Queen interviews Nadim Sadek. Nadim is a creative strategist and founder of Shimmr AI, who argues that AI can strengthen human creativity rather than replace it.
In this post, Robert attempts to embrace a gloomy optimism as he muses on the state of publishing at scholarly societies.