Introduction: The Myth of “Building AI” There is a quiet but persistent illusion spreading across academic publishing. It usually begins with a familiar phrase: “We need to build our own AI.” It sounds ambitious. It sounds forward-thinking. It sounds like survival. It is also, for most publishers, completely misguided. The reality is far less glamorous. … Read more
Introduction For over two decades, open access has been framed as one of the most important moral victories in academic publishing. The idea is simple, elegant, and almost impossible to argue against. Knowledge, especially publicly funded knowledge, should be freely available to anyone who seeks it. No paywalls. No barriers. No gatekeeping based on ability … Read more
Introduction Something fundamental has changed in academic publishing, and it did not arrive with a dramatic announcement or a clean transition plan. It happened quietly, almost awkwardly, as if the industry itself was not entirely aware of what was going on. For decades, the business model was straightforward. Publishers sold content to libraries, libraries paid … Read more
Introduction Academic publishing has always had an easy scapegoat: bad writing. When journals are overwhelmed, when reviewers are slow, when editorial timelines stretch into months, the blame often lands on the quality of submissions. Too many weak papers. Too many poorly structured arguments. More recently, too many AI-generated manuscripts flooding the system. It sounds convincing, … Read more
Introduction For decades, academic publishing has operated on a relatively stable economic logic. Publishers produce, curate, and distribute scholarly content. In return, they earn revenue through subscriptions, licensing agreements with libraries, and, more recently, article processing charges tied to open access. It is a model built around access. Access to journals. Access to databases. Access … Read more