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.
AI scholarly search tools often miss important literature due to incomplete metadata. Better full-text-derived metadata could significantly improve discovery.
Today’s post shares the results of an initiative designed to answer the question: what would it actually take to build a publishing model fit for the research ecosystem we have now, rather than the one we inherited?
For scholarly publishers, the user has changed faster than the systems designed to serve them, and the gap between the two is where most of the difficult work is happening.
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?
In honor of Global Accessibility Awareness Day, today’s post shares results from an experiment with qualitative data analysis — demonstrating that, while AI can detect patterns, humans must decide what those patterns mean.
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 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.
To honor the UK’s Mental Health Week, we take a look back at the Mental Health Monday posts in The Scholarly Kitchen with calls to action, practical tips, and tools for “taking ACTION.”
Today’s guest post proposes a method for identifying, measuring, and managing robotic usage of scholarly content.
Today’s post asks: If research is increasingly accessed through AI-generated summaries rather than via primary sources, then what does it mean to “engage with research” at all?
Today’s Mental Health Awareness Monday reflects on the need for validation in publishing careers, and how we might reduce unnecessary pressure on performance while preserving rigor.
This month’s Pulse Check survey focuses on our community’s views on advocacy, industry priorities, and challenges of engaging with policymakers and the public.