Guest Post — AI Use: From Policies to Reality
Today’s guest blogger reflect on their panel discussion about policies and realities of AI in scholarly communications at COPE’s Publication Integrity Week event last month.
Today’s guest blogger reflect on their panel discussion about policies and realities of AI in scholarly communications at COPE’s Publication Integrity Week event last month.
Today’s guest bloggers advocate for marketing strategy using localization, which brings cultural fluency, awareness, and authenticity to our communication with partners around the world.
The first of SSP’s new polling initiative, Pulse Check, explores AI in scholarly publishing and set out to understand how our communities are navigating this monumental shift.
To close out 2025, we asked the Chefs: What would you ask for from Academic Publishing Santa?
Academic publishing ia reaching a breaking point. Unless we redesign it, we risk stalling the very progress we seek – with consequences impacting research, education and public trust in academia.
Rather than just bolting on AI to existing publication workflows,there is a real opportunity to rethink and redesign them for human–AI collaboration. Some thoughts on what that looks like in practice.
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.
Nearly three years after ChatGPT’s debut, generative AI continues to reshape scholarly publishing. The sector has moved from experimentation toward integration, with advances in ethical writing tools, AI-driven discovery, summarization, and automated peer review. While workflows are becoming more efficient, the long-term impact on research creation and evaluation remains uncertain.
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.”
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.
Today, we talk to thought leaders Helen King and Chris Leonard, who offer a nuanced look at how peer review might adapt, fracture, or reinvent itself in the AI era.
The future of peer review isn’t about choosing between humans and AI, or between speed and quality, but about combining the strengths of both to enable speed with quality, to ensure quality, ethics, and trust in the scholarly record.
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.