Guest Post — Could AI Help Fix Peer Review, or Will it Only Make Things Worse?
Today’s post asserts that peer review, which is still of vital importance to science, is clearly failing in the current age — could AI save the day?
AI in Peer Review: Revisiting an 8-year-old Debate
In 2018 at SSP New Directions, Neil Blair Christensen and Angela Cochran participated in an Oxford debate on the use of AI in Peer Review. Today, they revisit their main points and reflect on where they think we are today and will likely be in another 8 years.
Guest Post — The Value Challenge in Scholarly Publishing
Today’s guest blogger identifies signals of how fractured the scholarly research ecosystem has become, and how the value publishers provide is increasingly questioned, dismissed, or overlooked by key stakeholders.
Guest Post — Re-imagining Scholarly Integrity: The “Continuum of Consensus” Quality Control System
Today’s guest blogger proposes the “Continuum of Consensus” as a solution to shore up research integrity, peer review, and the public trust in scholarly research.
Guest Post: The Human Heart of Science — Navigating AI Anxiety in the Academic World
Today’s guest blogger calls for “rehumanizing” our view on AI innovations and their impacts on our mental health and our communities.
Mental Health Awareness Mondays — The Courage to Be Uncertain: A New Approach to Impostor Feelings
Today’s guest bloggers reflect on the experience of “imposter syndrome” and how we might adopt a new approach to moments of uncertainty and change.
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.
Guest Post — What is The ‘Right’ Way to Make Tea? Why International Marketing Needs a Local Touch
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.
AI in Scholarly Publishing — SSP Pulse Check Report
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.
Ask The Chefs: What Would You Ask of Academic Publishing Santa
To close out 2025, we asked the Chefs: What would you ask for from Academic Publishing Santa?
Guest Post: Academic Publishing Is Not Fit for the Future – If We Don’t Act Now, The Vital Role Research Plays in Society Is at Risk
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.
Reimagining Scholarly Publishing Workflow: A High-Level Map of What Changes Next
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.
Manuscript Submissions Are Up! That’s Good, Right?
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.
Three Years After the Launch of ChatGPT, Do We Know Where This Is Heading?
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.
Guest Post — When Significance Hurts: What the SAMPL Guidelines Can Teach Us
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.”