Those are just a few highlights from the survey findings. To learn more, check out the "Technology Needs of Small and Medium Journal Publishers" report here: buff.ly/bSiyvm8

We welcome any questions about the report in the comments! 👇

4️⃣ Participants primary tech challenges were related to resource constraints

When asked about challenges with their publishing technology, more than half of the respondents indicated budget and human resource constraints. The next leading challenge was "integrating with external platforms/tools."

3️⃣ Sentiments toward AI were mixed

Survey respondents had a cautiously optimistic outlook on AI, with 58% reporting they felt "somewhat" or "very" positive about AI's potential to improve scholarly publishing.

2️⃣ AI-generated content and plagiarism were top concerns

Considering the extent to which their org will increase automation in multiple research integrity areas over the next 2 yrs, over 60% of respondents expected increased automation for AI-generated content detection and plagiarism detection.

1️⃣ Research integrity check automation was a priority

Over 60% of respondents said their org would seek to further automate research integrity checks in the next 2 yrs. Publishers of primarily STEM journals were more likely to use research integrity software than those of primarily non-STEM titles.

This is such a great idea! 🎃

We hope this thread will help you overcome those rejection writing demons! 👿 😇

Have questions or additional insights to share? Add them to the comments!

These tips are from a Scholastica blog interview with Anita Harris, managing editor of SubStance: A Review of Theory and Literary Criticism published by @hopkinspress.bsky.social.

Read the full interview here: buff.ly/8PM9kRP

Of course, you'll want to carefully re-read referee comments to spot potentially harsh or ambiguous statements. In such cases, consider going back to the reviewer to ask them something like, "what constructive feedback would you give the author on this point?"

3️⃣ Send actionable comments

In line with sending actionable editor feedback, consider sharing referee comments with authors whose manuscripts have gone to external review. This will give them further insight to improve future submissions.

For example, instead of saying the blanket statement, "There are flaws in the methodology," bullet out your key concerns.

As a rule of thumb, every reason for a manuscript rejection you provide should lend itself to an action step for the author.

2️⃣ Avoid blanket statements

When outlining the reasons for a rejection decision, editors should focus on referencing concrete facts and avoid blanket statements, as they can seem more emotional than analytical and cause authors to feel like their submissions didn't receive fair consideration.

Rejection letters with explanations should come from an editor who made the manuscript decision, not a generic journal email.

You can, of course, still use decision letter templates to save time. Just be sure to include places for personalization in each template and use them!

1️⃣ Provide an explanation

Don't just write something like, "thank you for your submission, but we've decided it's not a good fit for the journal." There's no outcome more terrifying for an author who's worked on a piece of research for months or years — they'll have a thousand questions as to why.