Today’s post considers the NIH proposal to implement APC funding caps, public responses it engendered, and, while we await a final decision, and shares thoughts on what may come next.
Today’s post is an urgent call to push back against global trends in academic censorship and threats to free speech in scholarly communications.
Today’s post explores issues facing scholarly publishers around AI — using it, layering it, competing against it, and licensing to it.
Today’s guest post asks readers to reckon with the idea that knowledge reflects power, and the global knowledge economy excludes the Global South.
SSP’s second Pulse Check survey results paint a picture of an industry in defensive mode — cautious, structurally stressed, but not in freefall.
Today’s guest post demonstrates how publishers can reduce their carbon footprint and be leaders in environmental sustainability.
Today’s guest blogger asks: What would it mean to support community-led publishing as infrastructure, rather than as a collection of heroic individual efforts?
Today’s guest blogger calls for adding “understandable” to the FAIR data principles, to ensure we do not surrender human knowledge in our rush for automation.
Today’s guest bloggers assert that the future of the scholarly publishing depends on mastering science communication with the same rigor that global consumer brands apply to marketing.
AI-driven zero-click search is widening the gap between visibility and usage, threatening publisher revenue, research integrity, and trust. How should we respond?
Robert Harington attempts to shine a light on some of the political problems scholarly societies and academic institutions face in the current political climate.
Today’s post paves a clear path forward in making AI work for publishers in the brave new agentic world.
Today’s guest post features an interview with William Gunn discussing how AI will (or won’t!) change the future of reference management tools.
Today’s guest author raises the question of whether a researcher submitting an article that was significantly drafted by an LLM without clear disclosure is effectively engaging in a contemporary form of ghost authorship.
The Scholarly Kitchen’s 2025 Readership Survey reflects feedback from our community that will shape the future direction of our blog.