Guest Post — All this AI Signal and Noise: What Deserves Action Now
Amidst the onslaught of industry and global changes, opportunities, and advancements, which signals deserve action now, which are context, and which are weather?
Amidst the onslaught of industry and global changes, opportunities, and advancements, which signals deserve action now, which are context, and which are weather?
Today, the co-chairs of the 2027 SSP Annual Meeting discuss the theme and the importance of gathering to discuss what, how, and why we publish.
Big changes are afoot, particularly for the HSS parts of scholarly publishing, as Informa announces its intention to separate Taylor & Francis. Roger Schonfeld reflects on the possible mechanisms and some potential ramifications
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.
Today, we take a dive into the results of SSP’s latest Pulse Check Survey, revealing how our community is grappling with research integrity and its interconnected challenges.
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.
Today, we “Ask the Chefs” to consider what they might do differently with their open access strategy if they knew then what they know now.
STM has released voluntary recommendations to help journals and publishers clarify data sharing guidance for medical and health science researchers, where privacy, regulation, and ethics make generic policy language especially hard to apply.
Today, we feature an interview with Tetiana Yaroshenko, Deputy Director for Research and International Affairs at the State Scientific and Technical Library of Ukraine, and Denys Kurbatov, Deputy Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine.
Today’s guest bloggers present a 6-part model for explaining spikes in manuscript submissions and better informing future publishing strategies.
Some readers are foxes, and some are hedgehogs. What kind of reader is AI, and how will that impact both the practice of science and the business of journal publishing?
Closing out Peer Review Week 2026, today’s post suggests that research novelty and capacity for innovation should be given greater priority than clarity and comprehensiveness in peer review.
What if the systems designed to protect scientific rigor are also making it harder for new ideas to emerge? Do different scholarly contributions deserve unique forms of evaluation?
Today’s guest post asks what about our current peer review system is worth saving and if we’re able to establish one that protects editorial judgment and preserves research integrity.
The journal portfolio, platform, or membership is no longer enough, as AI transforms how research is discovered and consumed. How will your organization adapt?