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.
Today’s guest post asserts that AI infrastructure will let publishers truly leverage machines, while brand and community are what will keep them meaningful to humans.
China’s publishing ambitions create genuine competitive pressures, but they also open opportunities for collaboration and highlight challenges that neither side can address alone
Research disciplines require institutions that create cohesion, uphold standards, and provide continuity over time. Scholarly societies are uniquely positioned to serve that role credibly and durably.
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.
Today’s guest bloggers call publishers to lean into, rather than away from, their liability for science integrity and rigor.
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, 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.”
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.
Today’s post asserts that peer review, which is still of vital importance to science, is clearly failing in the current age — could AI save the day?
In 2018 at SSP New Directions, Neil Blair Christensen and Angela Cochran participated in an Oxford debate on the use of AI in Peer Review. Today, they revisit their main points and reflect on where they think we are today and will likely be in another 8 years.
Today’s guest post offers a review of a panel of publishers and editors discussing the pros and cons of using Generative AI, along with ethical and policy implications.
Today’s guest blogger proposes the “Continuum of Consensus” as a solution to shore up research integrity, peer review, and the public trust in scholarly research.
Today’s guest blogger asks: What would it mean to support community-led publishing as infrastructure, rather than as a collection of heroic individual efforts?