Zul M

Introduction Academic publishing loves to imagine itself as timeless. Peer review feels ancient. Journals feel permanent. University presses feel like institutions carved into stone. Yet if we rewind just twenty years, the landscape looked dramatically different.  In 2005, open access was still considered radical. Preprints were niche outside physics. Artificial intelligence in editorial workflows was … Read more

Introduction For decades, scholarly publishing revolved around a comforting assumption. Content was the asset. Academic journals were the gatekeepers. Libraries paid for access. Prestige flowed through impact factors and brand recognition. The publisher that controlled the journal controlled the market. That logic made sense in a world defined by scarcity. Print runs were finite. Digital … Read more

Introduction For most of its modern history, peer review has been treated as a moment. A paper is submitted, reviewers are assigned, comments are exchanged, and a decision is made. Once published, the work is assumed to have passed a threshold of quality and legitimacy. The system moves on to the next manuscript. That mental … Read more

Introduction Scholarly journal indexing is usually framed as boring infrastructure. A background system. A checklist. A database decision. Something editors deal with quietly while scholars focus on research and writing. That framing is convenient, because it hides just how much power indexing holds over academic life. Being indexed by major databases determines which journals survive … Read more

Introduction Academic publishing is currently undergoing a midlife crisis of some sort. For decades, the traditional model of shipping papers off to a corporate giant, waiting six months for peer review, and then paying to read your own work has been the standard.  However, as the internet matured, researchers began to realize that the heavy … Read more