Today, Alison Mudditt reflects on a Charleston Conference session that asked: what would it take to make the scholarly communication system truly equitable, impactful, and future-ready?
A review of 12 major publishers finds that they display an average of 6 journal-level impact metrics on their platforms. The Journal Impact Factor is the only metric displayed on all 12.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Today’s guest bloggers share analysis on the relationship between impact and policy during Global Goals Week 2025.
Tony Alves reflects on the 2025 Peer Review Congress and the rapid evolution of discussions about AI and peer review since 2022.
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.
To kick off Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs, What’s a bold experiment with AI in peer review you’d like to see tested?
Today’s post discusses research metrics and their relationship to research integrity, inclusivity, and long-term impact.
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.