Guest Post — New Directions Seminar: Reverse Roundtables Kept the Post-Lunch Conversations Going!
What are the new directions in scholarly publishing? Check out the unique “reverse roundtable” discussions at SSP’s New Directions seminar!
What are the new directions in scholarly publishing? Check out the unique “reverse roundtable” discussions at SSP’s New Directions seminar!
In this post we reflect on the current threats to trust in scholarly journal publishing, and the implications for organizations like Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) that seek to uphold that trust.
An update on progress from the STM Research Integrity Hub.
Part two of a look back at the Publisherspeak meeting — today’s themes: metadata infrastructure and diversity in authorship and editorial processes.
Part one of a look back at the Publisherspeak meeting — today’s themes: author experience (AX) and AI.
As high profile cases about image integrity problems in scientific papers become more frequent, the community must consider how to overcome the issues with the manual image review process and the benefits of AI in rapidly detecting, and potentially preventing, these issues.
Behind the scenes, we’ve been working over the last 9 months to re-engineer the SSP’s Annual Meeting program to include more new voices in our industry, and we can’t wait to share the results with you.
Journal articles with ChatGPT authored text are being found. How common is this in the literature? And how, or better yet, when, is this problematic text slipping through to publication?
Christos Petrou looks at the factors that go into determining a journal’s turnaround times, and how we can help authors make better-informed choices.
How can we optimize the peer review process, and what role should AI play?
Balancing the anxiety and the excitement over the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scholarly publishing.
As we contemplate a pause during the holiday season, we must ask ourselves: Isn’t the researcher’s overall well-being as crucial as the research itself?
Generative AI wants to make information cheap, but will people want to read it? Are we ready for more productive writers?
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
How do we strike a balance between humans and AI to improve peer review? We’ve interviewed a few publishing experts who specialize in human and AI ethical, equitable, and sustainable publishing solutions to share their thoughts on the future of peer review.