Trust in Scholarly Publishing
How do we define, track, and measure trust in scholarly publishing?
Guest Post — Hanging in the Balance: Generative AI Versus Scholarly Publishing
Balancing the anxiety and the excitement over the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scholarly publishing.
The Necessity of Book Reviews
Is the scholar-to-scholar exchange found in book reviews still of value to the community? There is concern over their decline.
Redefining “Normal” in Academia
The traditional “normal” in academia often lacks the richness and dynamism required for robust intellectual discourse and innovation. How can we cultivate a “personalized normal” that celebrates the uniqueness of researchers and empowers them to communicate their discoveries innovatively?
Smorgasbord: eLife and Significance vs. Accuracy, The Collapse of the Humanities, and a new NISO Draft on Retractions Standards
A mixed bag post from us — can you separate out the significance of research results from their validity? What will the collapse of the Humanities mean for scholarly publishing writ large? And a new draft set of recommended practices for communicating retractions, removals, and expressions of concern.
The Peer Review Renaissance: An Urgent Call for Transformation
Are there enough reviewers though to meet demand and is the peer review process efficient enough to handle the sheer volume of papers being published? How can a combination of human expertise and AI make the peer review process more efficient?
AI and Scholarly Societies
Robert Harington provides a template for scholarly societies wondering how to grapple with the overwhelming and omnipresent prospect of an AI future.
Ending Human-Dependent Peer Review
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
Guest Post — Striking a Balance: Humans and Machines in the Future of Peer Review and Publishing
How do we strike a balance between humans and AI to improve peer review? We’ve interviewed a few publishing experts who specialize in human and AI ethical, equitable, and sustainable publishing solutions to share their thoughts on the future of peer review.
Embedding DEIA in Peer Review Processes: An Interview with SSP’s DEIA Outreach Subcommittee about their Upcoming Toolkit
Our week of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2023 continues with an interview with Shaina Lange and Sue Harris of SSP’s DEIA Committee Outreach Subcommittee, about their work on a soon-to-be-published toolkit to build DEIA in peer review processes and editorial roles
How Does Mandated Code-sharing Change Peer Review? An Interview with PLOS Computational Biology
In today’s Peer Review Week guest post, Joe Pold of PLOS interviews the senior editorial team of PLOS Computational Biology about their experience of mandating code sharing for the journal, and its impact on peer review
Reflections on Peer Review and the Humane Future of Publishing
In today’s post Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf kick off a week of posts to celebrate Peer Review Week 2023 with their thoughts on peer review and the future of publishing.
Ask the Chefs: What is the Single Most Pressing Issue for the Future of Peer Review?
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
Guest Post — Can Inadequate Corrections Turn Misinformation into Disinformation?
Could the failure of a journal to visibly correct known errors in a publication, thereby propagating false information, be considered disinformation?
AI Beyond the Publishing Workflow
What uses for artificial intelligence (AI) might we expect outside of the publication workflow? Some answers to this question can be found through the lenses of sustainability, justice, and resilience.