What’s Hot and Cooking In Scholarly Publishing
Some thoughts on the reader response the Scholarly Kitchen has seen regarding AI use by authors, a recent Nature News article on the efficacy of AI detection tools, and why it’s important to keep experimenting to figure out what’s ethically acceptable.
Today’s post explains how Ukraine’s academic publishing sector is confronting a global monograph crisis with unexpected urgency and innovation.
Today’s guest bloggers reflect on an SSP panel conversation about how scholarly publishing is not only built through shared work but also through shared understanding.
Today’s guest post argues that scholarly publishers’ institutional credibility and alignment are in crisis, and suggests the time for a structural rebrand is now.
Machine readers replacing human readers can sound like a threat. Today’s post argues that our community is well prepared to face these challenges and seize the opportunities.
Today’s post provides a brief analysis of self-referencing and scholarly impact through the lens of stigmergy theory
In this AI era, establishing trust and validating article versions with persistent identifiers (PIDs) is more important than ever.
Today’s guest post argues that digital preservation is not just a technical problem, but a function that often ignores issues of social justice, quietly codifying existing imbalances in scholarly communication.
From 19th-century beef tea to paper mills and generative AI, the challenge is no longer detection alone; it is preventing bad claims from becoming embedded knowledge.
Today’s guest post asks: Do trust markers and other systematic fraud-prevention practices exclude unaffiliated authors from contributing to the scholarly record?
The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and meaning.
AI is now a permanent feature of the scholarly landscape. The question is no longer whether it should be used, but how it should be understood and governed.
Today Alice Meadows interviews Jennifer Fleet (Aries Systems) and Christian Gruback (ChronosHub) about changing author needs and how their recently announced partnership is an effort to address them.
An interview with Natalie Ridgway about new guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Whether peer review needs revolution or evolution may be the wrong question. The more pressing one is whether the academic community is prepared to let scientific ideas be published, contested, and refined in public, rather than behind closed doors.
Publishing infrastructure shapes careers. It shapes what questions get asked, what research gets validated, and whose voices enter the global scholarly conversation. As the scholarly publishing market continues to consolidate, how does that impact different communities in different ways?