Publishing with Integrity

Peer review depends on academics giving their time and expertise without payment. For some, that is simply part of academic citizenship. For others, it is exploitation. But how far can that argument reasonably be taken, and how much unpaid labour should scholarly publishing expect? ...

Generative AI could make peer review faster, more systematic and less burdensome for reviewers. It could also produce inaccurate, excessively long reports while concealing how much of the reviewer’s judgement has been delegated to AI. If AI is already entering peer review, perhaps the real ...

Publishers often prohibit editors and peer reviewers from uploading submitted manuscripts to generative AI systems. They cite confidentiality, copyright, intellectual property and data privacy. Yet the authors may already have uploaded the same manuscript to an AI platform before submitting it. Rather than relying on ...

Authors are expected to respond carefully to every peer-review comment they receive. Yet they are rarely told who actually produced the report, whether artificial intelligence was used, whether the reviewer had a conflict of interest or whether the manuscript received more than a superficial reading. ...

Your co-author has been accused of research misconduct. Perhaps the allegation concerns a paper you wrote together. Perhaps it relates to an entirely different project. Either way, an uncomfortable question arises: what does this mean for you? Authorship brings recognition, reputation and career advancement, but ...

In June 2026, twelve journals were discontinued in Scopus. This decision directly affects the journals, but what does it mean for authors who have already published, submitted a manuscript, received an acceptance or paid an article processing charge? ...