The pandemic united us in ways we'd never experienced. It blurred the lines between silos and helped us realize shared experiences where we may have thought "disparate" was a better descriptor of roles in the publishing community. We realized that we all want best-in-class in collaboration, problem-solving, and inclusion, even though our environment sometimes makes it difficult for us to imagine seeing eye-to-eye. || Speakers: Michele Avissar-Whiting; Dominque J. Moore; Ben Mudrak; Jennifer Regala; Alexa Colella; Willa Liburd Tavernier

Like us, the systems we create evolve over time with selective pressure. Scholarly publishing—notoriously rigid and slow to evolve—now faces its own pressures for change. As researchers and institutions slowly begin to embrace innovation, we are witnessing the emergence of new traits: faster science but also greater transparency; more autonomy, but also more accountability. Preprints are at the core of this revolution. They have empowered scientists to control how, when, and to what extent they share their work and engage with feedback. Now that researchers can share work on their own terms, new possibilities lay before us. This new world of research communication is powered by intuitive tools, enabled by strong metadata, and enhanced by AI. It allows scientists to showcase not just static representations of their findings but the full richness of their work. No longer constrained by artificial limits, researchers can now present dynamic outputs that evolve alongside scientific discovery. But if this is the future we desire, it is up to institutions, funders to support those who make this new paradigm possible and reward those who embrace it. The evolution of scholarly publishing is inevitable, and the time has come. Now all we need is pressure.

It is now common practice for researchers in many disciplines to post their work as a preprint ahead of or in conjunction with submission to a peer-reviewed journal. For some, the question is no longer whether to upload a preprint of their work but when or how quickly to do so. With preprints now a first step in the submission process, publishers and editors have a new set of questions: Where do preprints fit in the scope of upholding scientific rigor? What if the study or data are flawed (and potentially harmful to readers, especially those who aren’t scientists)? Who takes responsibility for the accuracy of preprints and the data now “published” and available to the public? How do we handle retracting, citing, and referencing preprints? Are preprints a “move fast and break things” example of new directions in academic publishing, or should we consider implementing some speed bumps? This panel will discuss these questions and more.