Today’s post explains how Ukraine’s academic publishing sector is confronting a global monograph crisis with unexpected urgency and innovation.
Today’s guest bloggers reflect on an SSP panel conversation about how scholarly publishing is not only built through shared work but also through shared understanding.
Machine readers replacing human readers can sound like a threat. Today’s post argues that our community is well prepared to face these challenges and seize the opportunities.
From 19th-century beef tea to paper mills and generative AI, the challenge is no longer detection alone; it is preventing bad claims from becoming embedded knowledge.
The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and meaning.
AI is now a permanent feature of the scholarly landscape. The question is no longer whether it should be used, but how it should be understood and governed.
Publishing infrastructure shapes careers. It shapes what questions get asked, what research gets validated, and whose voices enter the global scholarly conversation. As the scholarly publishing market continues to consolidate, how does that impact different communities in different ways?
What happens then to “author voice,” which has always been an important consideration to authors and reviewers alike, if AI is helping researchers with their writing?
How has the social media landscape in scholarly communications changed, according to data from the recent Pulse Check, past community surveys, and checked real, live marketers?
Today, we asked the community: What key message(s) do you want policymakers to take from the responses submitted to the OMB?
New OMB Guidance threatens the important Title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs. Comment period ends today, please add your voice!
Research integrity demands stronger safeguards in order to protect the scholarly record. But for editors, when new integrity measures are introduced, they do not replace existing tasks; they are added alongside them, compounding workloads and responsibilities.
Today’s guest bloggers suggest that the involvement of commercial publishers is not unequivocally bad for preprints, and provide some optimism about open access as a whole.
Four Bangladeshi academics touch upon different aspects of academic publishing by linking them with the SDGs: accessing research; equity in co-authorship; editorial leadership; and SDG framing.
Two environmental researchers argue that open-access publishing has undergone major “environmental” shifts, triggering rapid and far-reaching evolutionary responses, not unlike natural ecocystems.