Research Integrity in Scholarly Communications — SSP Pulse Check Report
Today, we take a dive into the results of SSP’s latest Pulse Check Survey, revealing how our community is grappling with research integrity and its interconnected challenges.
Today, we take a dive into the results of SSP’s latest Pulse Check Survey, revealing how our community is grappling with research integrity and its interconnected challenges.
The problem with AI may not be that machines are growing more intelligent. It may be that we are becoming increasingly skilled at amplifying a highly capable, but limited form of cognition.
STM has released voluntary recommendations to help journals and publishers clarify data sharing guidance for medical and health science researchers, where privacy, regulation, and ethics make generic policy language especially hard to apply.
Today, we feature an interview with Tetiana Yaroshenko, Deputy Director for Research and International Affairs at the State Scientific and Technical Library of Ukraine, and Denys Kurbatov, Deputy Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine.
In today’s Mental Health Monday post, Ja’Nya Jenoch, a licensed mental health counselor, professor, author, and health researcher, takes us through the history of maternal mental health, unpacks terms such as postpartum depression and maternal separation anxiety, and explores the complex systems and pressures that shape the experiences of many mothers.
The US Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the copyright infringement litigation between The New York Times and OpenAI and Microsoft, et. al., largely siding with the AI companies and strongly favoring the notion of LLM training as fair use. We asked the chefs for their thoughts.
Today’s interview with Sylvia Chou and Alexa Romberg, formerly of NIH, sheds some light on censorship at the agency and the damage it’s doing to health research.
Identifying AI content is now embedded in Claude models. It doesn’t solve the problem we have. It also creates others.
Some thoughts on the reader response the Scholarly Kitchen has seen regarding AI use by authors, a recent Nature News article on the efficacy of AI detection tools, and why it’s important to keep experimenting to figure out what’s ethically acceptable.
Today’s post explains how Ukraine’s academic publishing sector is confronting a global monograph crisis with unexpected urgency and innovation.
Today’s guest post argues that digital preservation is not just a technical problem, but a function that often ignores issues of social justice, quietly codifying existing imbalances in scholarly communication.
Today’s guest post asks: Do trust markers and other systematic fraud-prevention practices exclude unaffiliated authors from contributing to the scholarly record?
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.
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 post is the second in a series arguing that fractures appearing across research systems are symptoms of a mismatch within today’s research ecosystem.