Today, we feature an interview with Tetiana Yaroshenko, Deputy Director for Research and International Affairs at the State Scientific and Technical Library of Ukraine, and Denys Kurbatov, Deputy Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine.
What if the systems designed to protect scientific rigor are also making it harder for new ideas to emerge? Do different scholarly contributions deserve unique forms of evaluation?
For Peer Review Week 2026, we asked the Chefs two questions: What is one uncomfortable truth about peer review that the scholarly publishing community doesn’t talk about enough? And, beyond recruiting more reviewers, what conversation about peer review capacity are we overlooking?
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.
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.
Today, we asked the community: What key message(s) do you want policymakers to take from the responses submitted to the OMB?
New OMB Guidance threatens the important Title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs. Comment period ends today, please add your voice!
Research integrity demands stronger safeguards in order to protect the scholarly record. But for editors, when new integrity measures are introduced, they do not replace existing tasks; they are added alongside them, compounding workloads and responsibilities.
This post is part of a special collaboration between The Scholarly Kitchen’s Mental Health Mondays and EON’s I AM EDITOR. United by a shared commitment to the people who have been called to scholarly publishing, this partnership seeks to amplify conversations about mental health, reduce stigma, and nurture a more supportive, resilient, and connected professional community.
Today’s guest post presents outcomes of the WCRI’s (World Conferences on Research Integrity) Focus Track to address this gap in clarity and standardization of AI disclosure.
Today’s guest post introduces the YCR-index as an alternative to measuring value with raw citation counts.
Today’s post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
While it’s true that AI may be viewed as “legitimate,” it’s far from universally loved. Understanding that distinction tells us something important about how the technology may ultimately be adopted — and governed — within academia.
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?