If it's isn't obvious already, it is the end of papers as a measure of productivity, expertise or accomplishment. The odds of publishing in "glam" conferences & journals also very quickly approaches random & the time for gate keeping review increasing exponentially. 1/— Anshul Kundaje (@anshulkundaje) September 19, 2026
Anshul Kundaje on Twitter / X
More public review, critical commentary, discussion and Q&A. Not only likes and retweets!But NO gate keeping!!We can have our cake and eat it too!! https://t.co/wq2MMHMMB4— Anshul Kundaje (@anshulkundaje) March 25, 2026
Anshul Kundaje on Twitter / X
Excellent post by Rachel Thomas in the ways AI hype is outrunning reality in life scienceshttps://t.co/oAqoWaJlIb pic.twitter.com/6psP5ZAyOF— Anshul Kundaje (@anshulkundaje) March 17, 2026
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.
Guest Post — Is Growth Always Good News? 2026 Article Submission Surges - The Scholarly Kitchen
ScholarOne saw a submission surge in the first quarter of 2026 — evidence that AI is increasing the strain on peer review's social contract with researchers.
The strain on scientific publishing
Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. Total articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science have grown exponentially in recent years; in 2022 the article total was approximately ~47% higher than in 2016, which has outpaced the limited growth - if any - in the number of practising scientists. Thus, publication workload per scientist (writing, reviewing, editing) has increased dramatically. We define this problem as the strain on scientific publishing. To analyse this strain, we present five data-driven metrics showing publisher growth, processing times, and citation behaviours. We draw these data from web scrapes, requests for data from publishers, and material that is freely available through publisher websites. Our findings are based on millions of papers produced by leading academic publishers. We find specific groups have disproportionately grown in their articles published per year, contributing to this strain. Some publishers enabled this growth by adopting a strategy of hosting special issues, which publish articles with reduced turnaround times. Given pressures on researchers to publish or perish to be competitive for funding applications, this strain was likely amplified by these offers to publish more articles. We also observed widespread year-over-year inflation of journal impact factors coinciding with this strain, which risks confusing quality signals. Such exponential growth cannot be sustained. The metrics we define here should enable this evolving conversation to reach actionable solutions to address the strain on scientific publishing.
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.
The Bazaar of Scientific Knowledge | shishyko!
Is the current form of the scientific paper still optimal in 2025? How do we preserve, and efficiently leverage, the uncut gems of the scientific process?
Scientific Publishing: Enough is Enough
Why we're no longer funding journal publications
Scientific Publishing: Enough is Enough
Why we're no longer funding journal publications
Reviewing post-publication peer review
Post-publication peer review (PPPR) is transforming how the life sciences community evaluates published manuscripts and data. Unsurprisingly, however, PPPR is experiencing growing pains, and some elements of the process distinct from standard pre-publication review remain controversial. I discuss the rapid evolution of PPPR, its impact, and the challenges associated with it.
Vipul Gupta on Twitter / X
Feels bad to say, but paper writing/reviewing is definitely cooked.Reviewed 4 papers recently and genuinely felt like I spent more time reviewing them than the authors spent writing them.— Vipul Gupta (@vipul_1011) September 19, 2026
Mikel Artetxe on Twitter / X
3/4 papers I reviewed and 2/3 reviews I got this ARR cycle were AI slop. Fraudsters are already outnumbering honest researchers. Unless drastic measures are urgently adopted, conference publications will have zero value or even become negative signal, and academia will be toast.— Mikel Artetxe (@artetxem) September 19, 2026
The State of Papers, Retractions, and Preprints: Evidence from the CrossRef Database (2004-2024)
A 20-year analysis of CrossRef metadata demonstrates that global scholarly output -- encompassing publications, retractions, and preprints -- exhibits strikingly inertial growth, well-described by exponential, quadratic, and logistic models with nearly indistinguishable goodness-of-fit. Retraction dynamics, in particular, remain stable and minimally affected by the COVID-19 shock, which contributed less than 1% to total notices. Since 2004, publications doubled every 9.8 years, retractions every 11.4 years, and preprints at the fastest rate, every 5.6 years. The findings underscore a system primed for ongoing stress at unchanged structural bottlenecks. Although model forecasts diverge beyond 2024, the evidence suggests that the future trajectory of scholarly communication will be determined by persistent systemic inertia rather than episodic disruptions -- unless intentionally redirected by policy or AI-driven reform.
Future of Scientific Publishing: Interview with Mathïs Fédérico - Writing Scientist
It started as a week-long writing bootcamp, with participants writing together on a video call. The week was a great success and everyone wanted to continue, so they did another week — and are continuing ever since.
