Guest Post — What Does Commercial Adoption Mean for the Preprint Movement?
Today’s guest bloggers suggest that the involvement of commercial publishers is not unequivocally bad for preprints, and provide some optimism about open access as a whole.
Today’s guest bloggers suggest that the involvement of commercial publishers is not unequivocally bad for preprints, and provide some optimism about open access as a whole.
Two environmental researchers argue that open-access publishing has undergone major “environmental” shifts, triggering rapid and far-reaching evolutionary responses, not unlike natural ecocystems.
Robert Harington reflects on our addiction to speed and advocates for slow scholarly publishing and the inherent beauty of not always being first.
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.
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.