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?
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.
Today, nearly one in four adults serves as a caregiver. Because of this, work-life flexibility isn’t just a nicety it’s a game-changer, for individuals and organizations alike.
Today’s guest blogger sees scholarly publishing at a critical inflection point and research suffering from a flawed incentive structure. Can systems thinking offer innovative solutions?
Robert Harington digs into the world of preprints. He uses the field of mathematics to explore how an inclusive view of preprints and published articles leads to a research ecosystem that is greater than the sum of the parts.
Three Oxford administrators want to lower the cost of mandatory open access by shifting the responsibility for enforcement to funding agencies. But that doesn’t lower costs at all; it only shifts them. To truly lower costs, stop trying to make open access mandatory.
How can academia better accommodate the diverse needs of parents striving to balance their research pursuits with family responsibilities?
How does the shift to interdisciplinary research reshape the very foundation of how knowledge is generated and applied across various fields and what do the different stakeholders in academia need to do to balance the depth of specialized knowledge with the breadth of interdisciplinary understanding?
A new study offers — surprise — mostly bad news about the state of Humanities graduate education. Even while we know how important humanistic perspectives are for, well, humanity.
It also can be something of a trap for a well-intentioned academic who wants to write for this audience, as writing for the lay person is often contemptuously dismissed as “popularization.” Woe to the academic who puts an article from The Atlantic or a book from Simon & Schuster into her tenure portfolio! It takes courage. My view is that these brave souls should be called out and celebrated. They are my heroes.
Revisiting a 2015 post to ask whether we are any closer to offering researchers credit for non-research activities?