Revisiting: Years and Years of Creative Commons Confusion
Creative Commons licenses continue to confuse the communications community. Here we collect a decade-plus of articles looking to offer some clarity on their use.
Creative Commons licenses continue to confuse the communications community. Here we collect a decade-plus of articles looking to offer some clarity on their use.
Publishers have led themselves into a mess by focusing on rising submissions as a positive indicator of journal performance. The time has come to close the floodgates and require that authors demonstrate their commitment to quality science before we let them in the door.
Get fired up for the SSP 48th Annual Meeting with inspiration from members of the Planning Committee!
Each new change in scholarly communication promises to make research fairer, faster, more transparent. Yet, in many cases, researchers, especially from under resourced countries or from countries where English is not the first language, face added pressure to catch up, rather than to move forward.
Today’s guest blogger explains how Drexel University sees transformative agreements as one of the best ways to support researchers and the public dissemination of knowledge, while also benefiting the university through cost-saving measures.
For decades, EAL researchers have faced systemic disadvantages in publishing. AI writing tools promise relief, yet, they also bring new risks into science.
Today we welcome Stephanie Lovegrove Hansen to The Scholarly Kitchen as a full time Chef and say goodbye to several long-term Chefs (and offer our thanks for all the wisdom they’ve shared with us).
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.