Social Media in Scholarly Communications — SSP Pulse Check Report
SSP’s latest Pulse Check survey offers a community-wide snapshot of social media in scholarly publishing as it stands today.
SSP’s latest Pulse Check survey offers a community-wide snapshot of social media in scholarly publishing as it stands today.
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.
A German court ruled against a mandatory article deposit requirement under Germany’s “secondary publication right” (SPR). Whatever the intentions, SPR is mainly going to contribute to the degradation of the record of science.
Today’s guest post is an urgent call for the SSP community to push back on the US government (OMB), which is poised to overhaul the concept of federal research grants.
Federated identity should be a natural fit for library access. So why isn’t it?
AI scholarly search tools often miss important literature due to incomplete metadata. Better full-text-derived metadata could significantly improve discovery.
For scholarly publishers, the user has changed faster than the systems designed to serve them, and the gap between the two is where most of the difficult work is happening.
Today we announce The Scholarly Kitchen’s new style guide for Chefs and guest bloggers alike.
Today’s guest post proposes a method for identifying, measuring, and managing robotic usage of scholarly content.
Today, members of SSP’s 48th Annual Meeting Program Committee share reflections for all attendees — including those joining the Highlights Webinar on June 17, 2026.
Today, co-chairs for SSP’s 48th Annual Meeting Planning Committee discuss what they’re most excited to deliver in this year’s program.
Today’s post recaps a lively roundtable conversation with library and information science experts who have been guest bloggers for TSK and active SSP participants.
A new STM Association paper seeks to foster a discussion about how GenAI systems can reliably incorporate scholarly research.
Today’s post is an urgent call to push back against global trends in academic censorship and threats to free speech in scholarly communications.
In 2018 at SSP New Directions, Neil Blair Christensen and Angela Cochran participated in an Oxford debate on the use of AI in Peer Review. Today, they revisit their main points and reflect on where they think we are today and will likely be in another 8 years.