New Directions 2025

The rapid development of artificial intelligence and AI-driven automation has barreled through scholarly communications, leaving a path of both opportunity and opposition. We can see AI now playing roles once served by humans, as AI tools are “reading” websites, “authoring” papers, and “reviewing” manuscripts. Are scholarly communications professionals prepared to access AI bots as our “users”? Are there aspects of reading, authoring, and reviewing that we should accept or even encourage? And which aspects should we avoid, which remain the exclusive domain of human users? What incentives (and disincentives) can we implement to impact the appropriate use of AI in research in publishing?

From Cold War science diplomacy to today's AI arms race, research has always been entangled with political forces. In 2025, however, the impact of political messaging (and other forces) has put a bright spotlight on these questions: Can the public trust science? Do scientific journals have value? This keynote explores how publishers can operate amid such challenges, responding to areas of great public and policymaker interest and concern. With a special focus on tactics, including some that have been recently explored at the Science family of journals, the keynote highlights strategies for leveraging publishers’ strengths and assets in ways that stand to help replace public doubt with public confidence.

Financial sustainability is a goal shared by the entire research support community and it is an ongoing, often elusive one. The term funding often brings to mind grants and philanthropy, but the reality is that organizations and initiatives of all kinds may rely on multiple sources of funds to keep the lights on, including memberships, fees for service, sponsorships, and more. In the current environment, it can be hard to know which services may be at risk, what lessons can be learned from times of relative plenty, and what strategies the scholarly publishing community can employ, individually and collectively, to maximize chances of sustainability. This panel session will cover a variety of use case perspectives on the current funding landscape, where it might be headed next, and what part we all play in shaping it.

What do the Nelson Memo, US and EU legislation, and broader readership have in common? Accessibility. This topic embodies the theme of the conference on incentives and outcomes, so grab some coffee and bring your questions and curiosity to this session to learn how accessibility works in practice for users of assistive technologies, what the current and forthcoming US and EU requirements are, and how accessibility of content benefits all of us.

In a world of increasing pressures on the scholarly ecosystem, incentivizing and recognizing peer review participation is foundational. But what, exactly, defines an incentive? How do we build a culture of meaningful recognition? In this session, panelists will discuss the latest trends in and pressures facing peer review from a variety of perspectives. Is recognition compensation, acknowledgement in professional advancement? Is it an incentive to provide a tool that removes some of the task work and lets a reviewer focus their time where their expertise really makes a difference? Should we encourage the use of AI in peer review? If so, how can AI be used responsibly? No single incentivization or recognition model will work for everyone, but what best practices should be common?

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has long dominated research evaluation, shaping funding decisions, institutional rankings, and academic career advancement. However, as the scholarly publishing community pushes for more holistic and responsible research assessment, alternative metrics and incentive structures are gaining traction (e.g., Citescore, Altmetric, DORA initiatives, etc.) This session will explore the current state of models for evaluating research impact, including open science practices, real-world applications, community engagement, and qualitative measures, while addressing the challenges of cultural change in academia and publishing. Panelists from across the scholarly ecosystem will share insights on how publishers, funders, researchers, and institutions can work toward policies that reward diverse contributions to knowledge. The discussion will also highlight case studies of successful transitions toward broader evaluation frameworks.

Transparency in the research process has never been a “one and done” activity. Norms and processes are changing all the time, in an effort to keep up with efforts to ensure more positive experiences and avoid consequences around bad actors or shortcuts. This session will zoom in on a few stages in the researcher and publisher journey. We’ll hone in on the increasing complexity in expectations around author Conflicts of Interest. To address transparency around data visualization, new tools will enable researchers to build their figures and charts on top of their data rather than through a separate process. A publisher will detail new guidelines to disincentivize helicopter/parachute research and to take more care with indigenous data governance.