AI-generated content has been discovered in prominent journals. Should peer reviewers be expected to find AI text in manuscripts? Where in the publication workflow should these checks be done?
What are the new directions in scholarly publishing? Check out the unique “reverse roundtable” discussions at SSP’s New Directions seminar!
We’re delighted to reveal the eagerly awaited theme for this year’s Peer Review Week, Innovation and Technology in Peer Review.
An update on progress from the STM Research Integrity Hub.
As high profile cases about image integrity problems in scientific papers become more frequent, the community must consider how to overcome the issues with the manual image review process and the benefits of AI in rapidly detecting, and potentially preventing, these issues.
Robert Harington discusses the value of preprints, the importance of peer review, research integrity and openness.
While the BMGF may be all-in, from an industry perspective the Gates Policy Refresh represents a small but potentially valuable experiment.
Research journals and the peer review process should not be the first line of defense in identifying research integrity issues. In today’s post, Angela Cochran calls for research institutions to take a larger role in validation and integrity checks.
Journal articles with ChatGPT authored text are being found. How common is this in the literature? And how, or better yet, when, is this problematic text slipping through to publication?
As scholarly journal editorial practices are the subject of growing scrutiny, publishers should explore “quality signals” systemically derived from researcher identity and metadata associated with identity.
How can we optimize the peer review process, and what role should AI play?
In today’s Kitchen Essentials interview, Roger Schonfeld speaks with Sami Benchekroun, CEO of Morressier, which provides publishers with workflows that ensure research integrity.
How do we define, track, and measure trust in scholarly publishing?
Balancing the anxiety and the excitement over the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scholarly publishing.
Is the scholar-to-scholar exchange found in book reviews still of value to the community? There is concern over their decline.