The Emotional Rollercoaster of Scholarly Publishing
Today, we take an emotional journey through scholarly publishing and aim to understand how emotions impact authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ experiences in the scholarly communications lifecycle.
Today, we take an emotional journey through scholarly publishing and aim to understand how emotions impact authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ experiences in the scholarly communications lifecycle.
Today’s post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
Today’s post explores what happens to the scholarly content platform when AI agents become the users.
Research disciplines require institutions that create cohesion, uphold standards, and provide continuity over time. Scholarly societies are uniquely positioned to serve that role credibly and durably.
ScholarOne saw a submission surge in the first quarter of 2026 — evidence that AI is increasing the strain on peer review’s social contract with researchers.
Today’s Mental Health Awareness Monday reflects on the need for validation in publishing careers, and how we might reduce unnecessary pressure on performance while preserving rigor.
Today’s guest post sounds an alarm about the use of AI in research and warns that no amount of computational efficiency can compensate for the loss of our capacity for human thought.
Today’s guest bloggers call publishers to lean into, rather than away from, their liability for science integrity and rigor.
Today’s post calls for collective action to address the researcher identity verification gap in scholarly communications and champions STM’s Researcher identity group.
Today, we share the results of a global community poll that produced the theme for Peer Review Week 2026 (14–18 September): “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed and Quality.”
Faced with technological shifts not seen since the advent of the internet, Todd Toler and Angela Cochran posit that the biggest challenges for organizations building an AI strategy are human, not technology.
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?
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.
Today’s guest post offers a review of a panel of publishers and editors discussing the pros and cons of using Generative AI, along with ethical and policy implications.
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.