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.
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?
A scholarly communication ecosystem that relies on voluntary support rather than charging for access to content becomes radically less capable of keeping money in the system.
A scholarly disinformation taxonomy could help prevent scholarly communications from being gamed by fraudulent actors.
While large international players showcase well-resourced compliance roadmaps toward accessibility compliance, many in the European publishing landscape are facing a more sobering reality: legal ambiguities, economic limits, and structural mismatches between regulatory goals and scholarly publishing practices.