Watching publication models evolve has revealed a counterintuitive pattern: while AI transforms peer review, the revolutionary impact isn't technological—it's social.

Real-time feedback isn't powerful because it's instant; it's powerful because it creates space for genuine scientific dialogue.

The scientific community remains fragmented by specialized languages and isolated expertise.

Our breakthrough moments happen at boundaries, yet we haven't built systematic ways to create these collisions.

Who's working to bridge these divides with you?

Wow! What a beauty! Is this a purely optical image or is it combined with IR/UV?

Working between physics and AI, I've repeatedly discovered solutions that existed for years in other fields.

The barrier wasn't knowledge—it was translation

Scientific progress demands not just specialists but interpreters who can bridge these disciplinary divides

How is scientific recognition evolving as publishing transforms?

As we shift from gatekeepers to facilitators of scientific conversation, our technological advances aren't replacing human judgment—they're creating environments where unexpected insights emerge through human connection.

The implications are profound. Enhanced accessibility combined with meaningful collaboration doesn't just speed communication—it creates environments where unexpected insights emerge through human connection. How should scientific recognition evolve accordingly?

Take real-time peer review. What makes it revolutionary isn't instant feedback—it's creating spaces for genuine dialogue. Ideas evolve through active engagement with emerging thoughts, not algorithmic processing.

A pattern emerging in academic publishing challenges conventional wisdom: our most powerful technological advances are actually reinforcing the human core of scientific discourse.

The most impactful changes aren't technological—they're social.

The next big breakthroughs will happen at the intersection of disciplines

We need tools that can identify complementary expertise across fields and facilitate meaningful collaboration

4/ Working at these intersections? Know someone who should join?

Reply here or DM me to get involved.

This could spark a new era of funder-publisher collaboration in science

3/ This isn't about maintaining status quo.

It's about crafting practical solutions for:

- Aligned evaluation processes
- Shared resource pools
- Tech-enabled review systems

2/ Why now? Because our challenges mirror each other:

- Finding qualified reviewers
- Ensuring unbiased evaluation
- Maintaining diversity in assessment

Yet we rarely share solutions

1/ We need voices from:

- Journal editors reimagining peer review
- Research funding officers exploring new models
- Publishers bridging operational gaps
- Foundation leaders streamlining scientific progress

The gap between research funders and publishers is costing us precious time in scientific advancement.

At the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, we're bringing both worlds together to craft a shared vision for 2030.

Want to help shape this future? Read on 🧵