Guest Post — AI as Reader, Author, and Reviewer: What Stays Human?
Today’s guest blogger shares highlights from a recent panel at the New Directions Seminar that concluded AI is simultaneously the largest challenge and the largest opportunity.
Guest Post — A Systems Approach to Research Publishing: From Fragmentation to Cohesion
Today’s guest blogger sees scholarly publishing at a critical inflection point and research suffering from a flawed incentive structure. Can systems thinking offer innovative solutions?
Manuscript Submissions Are Up! That’s Good, Right?
Publishers have led themselves into a mess by focusing on rising submissions as a positive indicator of journal performance. The time has come to close the floodgates and require that authors demonstrate their commitment to quality science before we let them in the door.
Guest Post — Reporting from LIBER 2025: Policy Influence, Library Agency, and Researcher-First Open Access Moves
Today’s guest bloggers reflect on the the LIBER Annual Conference in Lausanne (2–4 July).
Three Years After the Launch of ChatGPT, Do We Know Where This Is Heading?
Nearly three years after ChatGPT’s debut, generative AI continues to reshape scholarly publishing. The sector has moved from experimentation toward integration, with advances in ethical writing tools, AI-driven discovery, summarization, and automated peer review. While workflows are becoming more efficient, the long-term impact on research creation and evaluation remains uncertain.
Guest Post — When Significance Hurts: What the SAMPL Guidelines Can Teach Us
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.”
Guest Post – How the AI Debate Has Changed in Just a Few Short Years
Tony Alves reflects on the 2025 Peer Review Congress and the rapid evolution of discussions about AI and peer review since 2022.
Guest Post — May the AI Be With Science
AI has opened a new chapter in the saga of science and peer review. Today, guest author Prof. Nihar B. Shah explains how, if guided with integrity, AI can open galaxies of possibilities.
Peer Review in Transition: Helen King and Christopher Leonard on AI and the Future of Peer Review
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.
Peer Review in the Era of AI: Risks, Rewards, and Responsibilities
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.
Guest Post — Is It Enough to Say a Journal Is ‘Peer Reviewed’? The Case for Rating Journals Based on Peer Review Quality
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.
Ask the Chefs: What’s a Bold Experiment with AI in Peer Review You’d Like to See Tested?
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?
From Detection to Disclosure — Key Takeaways on AI Ethics from COPE’s Forum
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 Post — The Accessibility Illusion: When AI Simplification Fails the Users With Cognitive Disabilities
Guest blogger Hema Thakur shares results of her experiment using AI to improve the accessibility of peer review feedback — her findings may concern you!
Guest Post: Gatekeepers of Meaning — Peer Review, AI, and the Fight for Human Attention
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?