Guest Post — Manifesto Time: Do You Need a Publishing Manifesto?
Does your publishing organization need a manifesto? Writing a manifesto for your organization can be a great exercise for team building and planning, and a way to ignite action.
Does your publishing organization need a manifesto? Writing a manifesto for your organization can be a great exercise for team building and planning, and a way to ignite action.
If science is to be both honest and healthy, we must accept that statistically non-significant results are part of reality. The SAMPL guidelines, if adopted widely by scholarly publishers and journal editors, hold a solution for authors who worry their results are not “significant.”
Today, we speak with Prof. Yana Suchikova about GAIDeT, the Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy, which enables researchers to disclose the use of generative AI in an honest and transparent way.
Tony Alves reflects on the 2025 Peer Review Congress and the rapid evolution of discussions about AI and peer review since 2022.
The STM Association offers a classification scheme for the various possible uses of AI, including GenAI, in the preparation of manuscripts.
AI has opened a new chapter in the saga of science and peer review. Today, guest author Prof. Nihar B. Shah explains how, if guided with integrity, AI can open galaxies of possibilities.
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.
Today’s guest post by Deja Forte declares: Publishing isn’t just about systems and standards; it’s about people. Each of us has the power to build bridges between knowledge and the lives it’s meant to benefit.
This post explores author, reviewer, and publisher ethics and responsibilities related to the use of AI in coding and publishing research software.
Today’s guest authors offer practical tips for publishing high-quality image descriptions, a key step toward ensuring genuine accessibility in scholarly communications.
Summing up the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Forum discussion on Emerging AI Dilemmas in Scholarly Publishing, which explored the many challenges AI presents for the scholarly community.
As AI becomes a major consumer of research, scholarly publishing must evolve: from PDFs for people to structured, high-quality data for machines.
Catching up with the ongoing consolidation of the journals market — what has happened in the two years since this was last examined? And how does the market look if you add in a large number of relatively newly launched journals?
Open access has revolutionized how research reaches readers — yet, true accessibility is an ethical imperative for institutions, publishers, and service providers to create genuinely inclusive scholarly communication.
What happens when AI-infused information systems increasingly provide answers rather than directing people to sources?