Today’s guest post asserts that trust won’t be restored by “better messaging” alone, but via better incentives, more disciplined public communication, and really listening to the people who have walked away from us.
Today’s guest post sounds an alarm about the use of AI in research and warns that no amount of computational efficiency can compensate for the loss of our capacity for human thought.
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’s post calls for collective action to address the researcher identity verification gap in scholarly communications and champions STM’s Researcher identity group.
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.
Today’s post recaps a lively roundtable conversation with library and information science experts who have been guest bloggers for TSK and active SSP participants.
As AI systems increasingly reason from the scientific literature, the integrity signals that make research trustworthy — open data, structured metadata, robust retraction processes — matter more than ever. PLOS CEO Alison Mudditt on why open access publishers have a different set of obligations in an AI world.
In this post, Robert attempts to embrace a gloomy optimism as he muses on the state of publishing at scholarly societies.
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?
Today’s post is an urgent call to push back against global trends in academic censorship and threats to free speech in scholarly communications.
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 bloggers call for society publishers to recognize their unique role in shaping the systems researchers use to discover and evaluate knowledge.
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.