Guest Post – Do Not Go Gentle: Duke University Press Turns 100
As Duke University Press celebrates its 100th year, we take some time to reflect on our history and the important role played by university presses.
As Duke University Press celebrates its 100th year, we take some time to reflect on our history and the important role played by university presses.
The community comes together to launch TRACE, a project to improve generative AI systems’ interoperability, verifiability and usage tracking.
The problem with AI may not be that machines are growing more intelligent. It may be that we are becoming increasingly skilled at amplifying a highly capable, but limited form of cognition.
Let’s continue our “Ask the Chefs” conversation about what they might do differently with their open access strategy if they knew then what they know now.
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?
The journal portfolio, platform, or membership is no longer enough, as AI transforms how research is discovered and consumed. How will your organization adapt?
Today’s interview with Sylvia Chou and Alexa Romberg, formerly of NIH, sheds some light on censorship at the agency and the damage it’s doing to health research.
Today’s guest bloggers posit four important trends in scholarly communications that our community should be ready to tackle.
Identifying AI content is now embedded in Claude models. It doesn’t solve the problem we have. It also creates others.
Machine readers replacing human readers can sound like a threat. Today’s post argues that our community is well prepared to face these challenges and seize the opportunities.
In this AI era, establishing trust and validating article versions with persistent identifiers (PIDs) is more important than ever.
Today’s guest post argues that digital preservation is not just a technical problem, but a function that often ignores issues of social justice, quietly codifying existing imbalances in scholarly communication.
What happens then to “author voice,” which has always been an important consideration to authors and reviewers alike, if AI is helping researchers with their writing?
How has the social media landscape in scholarly communications changed, according to data from the recent Pulse Check, past community surveys, and checked real, live marketers?
Today’s guest post warns the community that, in the AI era, we cannot keep building the pieces that lay the foundation and letting someone else own what gets built on top of it.