Today, we talk to thought leaders Helen King and Chris Leonard, who offer a nuanced look at how peer review might adapt, fracture, or reinvent itself in the AI era.
The future of peer review isn’t about choosing between humans and AI, or between speed and quality, but about combining the strengths of both to enable speed with quality, to ensure quality, ethics, and trust in the scholarly record.
Peer Review Quality Ratings could offer a powerful step toward restoring faith in the scholarly research system, highlight exemplary practices, and ensure that robust, verified science continues to illuminate the path forward for humanity.
To kick off Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs, What’s a bold experiment with AI in peer review you’d like to see tested?
What can you expect from this fall’s New Directions in Scholarly Publishing Seminar in Washington, DC?
During the first Trump administration, Alice Meadows interviewed three women of color who are leaders in their fields about their experiences. In this post, they revisit the topic in the light of their new positions and today’s political environment.
A scholarly disinformation taxonomy could help prevent scholarly communications from being gamed by fraudulent actors.
Robert Harington talks to Melissa Junior, Executive Publisher at The American Society for Microbiology, in this series of perspectives from some of Publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and for-profit sectors of our industry.
Guest blogger, Ashutosh Ghildiyal, asks: Is AI for us, or are we for AI? In the all-important context of peer review, can we leverage AI to amplify human thought rather than replace us?
AI-enabled discovery and summarization tools seem like magic to end users, but for publishers it looks like disintermediation.
Robert Harington talks to Matt Kissner, CEO of Wiley, in this series of perspectives from some of Publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and for-profit sectors of our industry.
A report from this year’s Fiesole Retreat: Learning from the Past, Informing the Future.
A summary of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) debate session, where Haseeb Irfanullah argued in favor of a motion declaring that journal editors do not need to worry about preventing the spread of misinformation, while Are Brean argued against it.
Roger Schonfeld reflects on lessons from more than 20 years conducting research and supporting the work of libraries, publishers, and the research enterprise.
How does the Directory of Open Access Books navigate challenges to instill trust and transparency. Part 2 of 2.