







Helpful reminder from Elsevier that they have the "legal power" to do what they want with your journals. You have the collective power to take your editorial work elsewhere.
Stephanie Wang
🚨Elsevier forces out Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) Editor, entire editorial board has resigned, current board only handling new submissions until Nov. 14 #econsky
Aug 17, 2026 at 9:01 AM
Elsevier vs Meta: first science publisher sues over scraped research papers
Science publishing giant Elsevier has joined a class-action lawsuit against Meta that alleges the reproduction of copyrighted works in developing the Llama AI model.

Elsevier vs Meta: first science publisher sues over scraped research papers
Science publishing giant Elsevier has joined a class-action lawsuit against Meta that alleges the reproduction of copyrighted works in developing the Llama AI model.

The Journal Article Is Not the Job - The Scholarly Kitchen
There is more and more skepticism toward the role of publishers, a steady commoditization of publishing services, and growing fragmentation across the research ecosystem. If that is the case, the question is no longer what publishers do, but how that value is understood and extended.

Landing — Open Journals Collective
We're a collective of libraries, university presses, and non-profit publishers reshaping academic research.
The Dissemination of Scholarly Information: Journals, Open-Access and Distributed Filtering
Current methods of disseminating scholarly information focus on the use of journals who retain exclusive rights in the material they publish. Recently there has been increasing dissatisfaction with this model, with suggestions for alternative approaches such as "Open Access".
Why the Stockholm Declaration will never work
Abstract The Stockholm Declaration calls for a moral reformation of scientific publishing—replacing commercial publishers with scholar-led journals, rewarding quality over quantity and instituting independent oversight. While noble in spirit, it fundamentally misdiagnoses the disease. The crisis of science stems not from paper mills or profit motives but from systemic incentives that reward volume, novelty and prestige over validity and reliability. Non-profit ownership will not neutralize the prestige economy, sleuth-led policing cannot scale, and ‘integrity registries’ would merely replace metrics with surveillance. True reform requires rebuilding the publishing infrastructure as a public utility: publicly funded, free to publish and read, and stripped of hierarchy and financial incentives.

The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and Universities, to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market.

Fair Moderation, Equitable Access, and AI: arXiv’s Updated Rate Limit Policy
arXiv, and the scientific community at large, are facing a watershed moment. Scholarly publishing is currently changing at a rapid pace, and we are seeing a…

(PDF) Peer Reviewers Should be Allowed to Upload Manuscripts to AI
PDF | Publishers bar peer reviewers-but not authors or editors-from feeding manuscripts to AI. Cited confidentiality concerns don't survive scrutiny.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

Content unavailable | Elsevier
The content linked to this DOI is not currently available online

Making sense of preprints by adding context – The Publish Your Reviews initiative - LSE Impact
Improving scientific publishing is often framed as an issue of openness and speed and less often as one of context. In this post, Ludo Waltman and Jessica Polka make the case for a more contextualised approach to open access publishing and preprinting, and introduce the Publish Your Reviews initiative. Launched today by ASAPbio, the initiative

Governing the scholarly AI Commons – Open Future
New report explores how academic communities can shape AI governance in research and publishing, from regulation to community-led approaches.

Guest Post - The Perils of Using Generative AI to Perform Research Tasks: Editors’ and Publishers’ Viewpoints - The Scholarly Kitchen
Today's guest post offers a review of a panel of publishers and editors discussing the pros and cons of using Generative AI, along with ethical and policy implications.

Policies and Standards
Newsweek is committed to accurate, independent, ethical and responsible journalism. We report fairly; we attribute clearly; we correct mistakes transparently. Our editorial policies and processes are always intended to support those values

eLife receives Wellcome boost to build open publishing ecosystem
The new investment will back development of collaborative publishing tools and services for the benefit of the global scholarly community.
Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration
Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication. The number of low-quality or fraudulent publications is rising to hundreds of thousands per year, which—if unchecked—will damage the scientific and economic progress of our societies. The result is editor and reviewer fatigue, irreproducible experiments, misguided experiments, disinformation and escalating costs that devour funding from taxpayers intended for research. It is high time to reevaluate current publishing models and outline a global plan to stop this unhealthy development. A conference was therefore organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to draft an action plan with specific recommendations, as follows. (i) Academia should resume control of publishing using non-profit publishing models (e.g. diamond open-access). (ii) Adjust incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity, in a reputation economy where the gaming of publication numbers and citation metrics distorts the perception of academic excellence. (iii) Implement mechanisms to prevent and detect fake publications and fraud which are independent of publishers. (iv) Draft and implement legislations, regulations and policies to increase publishing quality and integrity. This is a call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort.
