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.
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.
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?
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.
Guest blogger, Ashutosh Ghildiyal, asks: Is AI for us, or are we for AI? In the all-important context of peer review, can we leverage AI to amplify human thought rather than replace us?
The most vital and enduring contribution of scholarly publishers is their role as gatekeepers — not as obstacles to knowledge but as stewards of quality, integrity, and trust.
I think human-dependent peer review has lost its human element, thus its relevance, so what we can do to install a new system by abandoning the present one?
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.