For those of us who have been in scholarly communications for a number of years, one of the most noticeable shifts in the industry has been the use of language and how it has morphed from being almost historical in nature to being at the cutting edge of the ‘tech bro’ vernacular. These days in publishing houses – itself a joyously arcane term these days – one cannot move for agile scrum masters and prompt engineers swarming round their kanban boards.

If journals reject papers due to review shortages, the peer review process itself becomes compromised.

If you are anything like me, you will have been experiencing serious FOMO in the last week as colleagues and acquaintances descended on Frankfurt for the annual publishing social, interrupted intermittently by the Book Fair. From what most LinkedIn posts would have you believe, a good time was had by all, but some of that reporting may be a little OTT.

With more article submissions and fraudulent activity than ever before, journal peer review processes are creaking under the pressure. Nina Notman discovers how AI and automated tools are taking some…

In a major step forward for tracking the real-world impact of research, Altmetric has added a new attention source: Podcasts.

Whatever your political persuasion, in recent times it seems apparent that things are not quite how they should be. Things are never perfect, of course, but no matter your views, there appears to be a groundswell of opinion that things need to change. And with social media turbocharging our keyboard warrior tendencies, we also need to blame somebody for it. 

Happy 50th birthday to ISSN! Yes, this week marks the half-century of ISSN International Centre, the body that manages the identifications of serial publications globally. Originally known as the International Serials Data System (ISDS), it was set up jointly by the UNESCO and France in 1975, and has been based in Paris ever since. The ISSN – or International Standard Serial Number – covers all serials (e.g., journals, newspapers, magazines) and what are known as ‘ongoing integrating resources’ (e.g., websites or databases).

There have been a number of studies in recent years about the awareness of predatory journals among researchers, which have had some troubling findings around perceived knowledge and actual knowledge of their activities. One study, for example, showed that while 87% of respondents to one survey said they were confident in identifying a predatory journal, only 60% could do so when tested.

It’s important for journalists to be aware of predatory journals because such journals pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism.

Today's guest bloggers share analysis on the relationship between impact and policy during Global Goals Week 2025.

This month has seen two articles published and garner significant attention on the predatory publishing phenomenon, highlighting many of the problems it creates for scholarly communications and society in general. Both articles are well argued, making interesting points and revealing core truths about predatory journals. So, what’s the problem? One of them is wrong. Not fundamentally, heinously wrong at all, but with errors that, in different ways, undermine its efforts to place a spotlight on predatory publishing practices.

Now a fixture in the scholarly communications calendar, Peer Review Week has become one of those pivots that for many people, the year revolves around. Like children going back to school after the summer break, or the inexorable slowdown ahead of Christmas, this week in mid-September serves as a reflection point on what has gone before it, and what should happen afterwards.

Global survey reveals growing divide in attitudes but more recognition of AI potential to support peer review process

The London-based Publishers Association holds its annual reception at Parliament, with MPs, publishers, and book-industry players…

Tomorrow I will have the honor of giving a lightning talk at the annual ALPSP Conference in my home city of Manchester in the UK. This is not just a highlight for me, but for those in the publishing community who are able to visit this wonderful city. As usual, there is much to delight delegates in a varied and packed agenda.

Digital Science investigations show researchers associated with a fictitious research network and funding source have netted millions of taxpayers' dollars in funding.