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?
Three global society publishers respond to cOAlition S’s recent “Towards responsible publishing, a proposal from cOAlition S”.
Balancing the anxiety and the excitement over the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scholarly publishing.
Generative AI wants to make information cheap, but will people want to read it? Are we ready for more productive writers?
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?
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.
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?
Robert Harington provides a template for scholarly societies wondering how to grapple with the overwhelming and omnipresent prospect of an AI future.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.