Your diversity is our strength: encouraging first-time mentors to make a difference by Miranda Ashby-Wood, Christina Emery & Marios Karouzos

Miranda Ashby-Wood, Christina Emery & Marios Karouzos, mentors on the 2024 ALPSP Mentorship Scheme

The close of 2024 saw the official wrap up of the 2024 ALPSP Mentorship Scheme that attracted more than 119 mentees from at least 18 different countries, mentored by 103 mentors over the course of eight months, from May to December 2024. The programme provided mentees with a wide network of expertise and skills to help foster their skill development and career progression. It also encouraged collaborative learning between mentors and mentees, both benefitting from the shared dialogue and experience.

Let us take stock of 2024’s mentor/mentee cohort. Most mentees self-identified as female (80%). While the same was true for mentors, the gender ratio was slightly less skewed (75% female) - you can see the full distribution below. Under the assumption that mentors are likelier to be more senior in their careers than mentees, this difference illustrates the well-known leaky pipeline effect, where women are less represented in more senior roles.

In terms of regional diversity, perhaps unsurprisingly, most mentors and mentees were based in Europe and the UK, reflecting the ALPSP membership. Interestingly, while the geographic distributions of mentors and mentees broadly matched, we note a clear dearth of mentor representation from the Asia Pacific region, which includes the Indian sub-continent.

So, what do these numbers tell us? We are not as diverse as we would like, especially lacking in male representation – something which we hope will improve for the 2025 scheme. The numbers may also imply that certain groups of people within our industry may not feel as empowered (or welcomed) to step forward as role models and mentors. What can we do about it? This and other similar mentoring programmes are great tools to increase skills and senior leadership capacity across the industry with mentees of today becoming the mentors of tomorrow.

This blog post also aims to dispel some myths about what a mentor can look like and seeks to empower those of you considering taking up the mentor mantle in the 2025 iteration of ALPSP mentorship scheme.

What does a mentor look like?

Many people may immediately generate an image of a very senior professional – perhaps a senior manager or head of department, or even a CEO – when asked to visualise a mentor, but this is a common misconception.

Anyone can be a mentor, and in fact having a range of individuals at different stages of their careers can benefit a programme such as this. It isn’t necessarily a senior individual mentoring a more junior individual; you could mentor someone at the same career level as you or even someone more senior. One example of how this could work is the scenario where you are perhaps at an earlier stage in your career, but you may have experience in a particular project or area that someone more senior is new to, or is looking to move into. Another scenario is where an early career individual may provide a different perspective to a common problem that is complementary, thereby providing new insights and diversifying established views.

Each mentor-mentee relationship is different, and every individual will have different goals. The aim of the ALPSP Mentorship Scheme is to pair individuals together to ensure both meet their goals. If you have been considering signing up but don’t feel experienced enough or are concerned you don’t have enough knowledge, fear not. We can guarantee there is a mentee out there who would love to learn from your experience and would really value your insight!

Embrace the leap: first-time mentorship matters

First-time mentors often underestimate the impact they can have. Some new mentors expressed an initial hesitancy to participate, fearing that they might not know enough to help their mentee. However, after completing the programme, they shared positive feedback with ALPSP that everything worked well and that they felt their contributions were worthwhile.

Tips for first timers

·        The mentee sets their own goals and meeting agendas, so just by having regular meetings you can guide them through their goals which helps them find motivation and be accountable.

·        You’re not expected to know everything, but you may be able to help your mentee help themselves. You could share useful links, provide them with training resources, or connect them to others who may be able to help.

·        Just by providing another perspective or asking provocative questions, you can challenge your mentee to see things in another light and consider other routes or solutions.

·        There is support available to guide you through the process. The Mentorloop platform has many useful resources on being a mentor, and there is a group chat where mentors can support each other. This adds a real community feel to the programme, and some mentors utilise the chat to ask others for advice or to meet at conferences.

·        In addition, the ALPSP team holds check in sessions at the beginning, during and at the end of the programme to help prepare you.

It’s time to take action

So, apart from helping others, why should you sign up? Being a mentor is extremely rewarding, with benefits including personal growth, increased confidence, learning from your mentee, and expanding your network.

To summarise, the ALPSP mentoring programme needs you! We need diverse perspectives from all regions, genders, backgrounds and levels of seniority, so consider signing up today. To learn more about the benefits of participating, we will be releasing a second blog post focusing on the advantages for mentors.

Testimonial quotes:

Miranda:

“Being part of the ALPSP Mentorship Scheme was an extremely rewarding experience. I developed my mentoring skills and gained confidence in my own abilities and knowledge, and also learnt a lot from my mentee – it was always refreshing to hear another perspective on many aspects of publishing. It was great to see my mentee grow in skills and confidence and reach their goals, and I thank them for their time, commitment and enthusiasm. I encourage anyone reading this to sign up as a mentor!”

Marios:

“Every mentorship is unique in its challenges and rewards. All of them, however, catalysed growth and development for my mentee and myself. I am very proud of my mentee’s achievements and their thoughtful engagement with our mentorship. Sign me up for 2025!”

Christina:

“Being a mentor was very fulfilling; after a great experience being a mentee the prior year, it was rewarding to give something back by helping someone else in need. It also helped me gain confidence through appreciating my own knowledge and skill set. Connecting with others in the industry was a bonus.”

About the ALPSP International Mentorship Scheme

The scheme aims to connect colleagues across the publishing industry and provide a wider network of expertise and skills to help foster development and progression. Open to ALPSP members (as mentees and mentors) as well as non-members (mentors only), the scheme was the winner of a ‘Most Impactful Mentoring Award’ in 2024. For more information and to register visit our website.

The ALPSP International Mentorship scheme is sponsored by Publishers' Licensing Services.

About the Authors:

Miranda Ashby-Wood, Co-Head of Publishing, British Institute of Radiology

Miranda is responsible for the strategic development of the BIR journal portfolio and leading the publishing department at the BIR. She is also responsible for the commissioning and development of BIR video courses and content within the BIR journal portfolio, working with members of the community to deliver relevant and high-quality material. Miranda is Co-Chair of the ALPSP Education Committee and a Director on the ALPSP Board.

Christina Emery, Head of Thought Leadership Programmes, Springer Nature

Christina is Head of Thought Leadership Programmes at Springer Nature, where she is responsible for both the development and execution of the organisation's thought leadership strategy. Christina is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the OAPEN Open Access Books Toolkit.

 

Marios Karouzos, Head of Publishing Strategy – Reviews, News & Opinion, Nature Portfolio,
Springer Nature

Marios is responsible for the strategy of the Reviews, News & Opinion content published in the Nature Portfolio. In addition to his role, Marios is a member of the editorial steering committee and a judge for the Inspiring Women in Science Nature Awards and co-chairs the Springer Nature SDG 5 "Gender equality" working group and the Springer Nature Women Employee Network.

Reflections on the ALPSP Annual Conference 2024 by Anna Savage

 ALPSP Rising Star Awards Winner, Anna Savage, Publishing Executive at BMJ Group, looks back at the conference.

The keynote speech of this year’s ALPSP conference introduced the two fundamental challenges with which the scholarly publishing world is undeniably grappling: open access, and Generative AI. The former is perhaps more familiar territory, though far from a worn-out topic. The latter has more recently emerged, however it is nonetheless already deeply embedded in the discourse, debates and decision-making taking place within research institutions, academic publishers, libraries, and funding bodies worldwide.

The keynote was delivered by Jake Okechukwu Effoduh and was entitled ‘Scholarly Publishing in the Era of Open Access and Generative AI’. As an opening to the conference, the session suitably considered that which is on everybody’s minds, and attempted to make sense of the tangled issues inherent in the title. If it were not obvious to conference attendees before they entered, it was soon clear that this is a pivotal time in scholarly publishing. The final impression we were left with, however, was one of optimism, and in my mind this theme pervaded the rest of the conference.

It can be easy to feel pessimistic about the current challenges. The keynote, along with several other conference sessions, highlighted concerns about the potentially underwhelming impact of open access as a funding model, and of the adoption of Generative AI tools so far. Both have been favourably regarded as solutions: the former to address inequity; the latter to tackle inefficiency. Instead we have been presented with new problems which must somehow be addressed. The keynote did not propose to have the answers. What it did was recognise the complexity of the current landscape. The concluding call to action invited us to envision how we can harness the potential of open access and Generative AI tools, empowering us to shape their role rather than being shaped by them.

From the variety of sessions and speakers that followed during the rest of the conference, it became clear that a one-sided approach would likely be ineffective. Solutions must not be sought from scholarly publishers alone because the challenges are not exclusive to scholarly publishers. Yes, open access poses challenges for sustainable revenue for publishers, but it also leads to inequities for researchers - as highlighted in the keynote -  and encourages predatory publishing practices, impacting all stakeholders in the publishing community. Likewise, Generative AI has the potential to exacerbate concerns around integrity, authenticity and bias. There is a risk of undermining the scholarly communication system as a whole, and this cannot be addressed by publishers alone.

The contributions to the conference were, accordingly, highly varied. Speakers included representatives from both large and small publishers, funding bodies, technology providers, consultants and recruitment services, who offered a wide range of perspectives on the current landscape. Many sessions focused on emerging innovations and advancements positioned to address key challenges, such as equitable funding models (e.g., S2O), integrity checks, and sustainable solutions. It was evident that multiple approaches to the same issue can coexist, and that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Collaboration between publishers and the broader academic publishing community will be essential as we continue to innovate and overcome emerging challenges.

I am particularly pleased that the Rising Star Award will continue to offer opportunities for early-career professionals to engage with this conference, and to be part of these critical conversations that will no doubt shape our careers in scholarly publishing.

About the ALPSP Rising Star Award 2024

This award aims to recognise potential in early career individuals. The winners are given the opportunity and financial support to attend the ALPSP Annual Conference in person and write a short review of their experiences of the meeting. The ALPSP Rising Star Award is sponsored by Publishers' Licensing Services.

The winners of this year's Rising Star Award are:

• Hazel Rowland, IOP Publishing
• Anna Savage, BMJ
• Ella Gibbs, Bristol University Press
• Heather Townsend, Bristol University Press
• Melody (Zhuxin) Zhang, Wiley

ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards

Thank you to all our speakers, sponsors and attendees for making the ALPSP 2024 Conference and Awards such a success. We will be returning to the Hilton Manchester Deansgate Hotel next year from 10-12 September 2025. The call for topics is open until 1 December. For more information, visit our website.

About the author

Anna Savage is a Publishing Executive at BMJ Group. 

She works on the day-to-day management and strategic development of a portfolio of hybrid and open access specialist medical journals, collaborating closely with journal editors and partner societies. She is also involved in exploring the potential applications of Generative AI tools at BMJ and the implications for academic journals.

ALPSP Annual Conference 2024: A Review by Ella Gibbs

ALPSP Rising Star Awards Winner, Ella Gibbs, Journals Executive at Bristol University Press & Policy Press

Being relatively new to the world of scholarly publishing, the ALPSP Conference was my first proper industry conference experience and I was initially very uncertain about what to expect. On the day of the conference I travelled to Manchester with my colleague who was also attending for the first time, which eased my nerves slightly. Any remaining nerves were quickly assuaged when I arrived at the conference venue and was struck by how welcoming everyone was.

A key theme of the conference was undoubtably AI and how the industry is responding to rapid changes and general uncertainty brought about in a world of generative AI. It was interesting to hear some of the conversations on AI that’ve been ongoing at my own workplace play out amongst the conference speakers and delegates: fears of the threat to research integrity, copyright concerns in an open access landscape, the implicit bias of Large Language Models (LLMs) and, more positively, the potential of AI to assist with tasks that are increasingly falling out of budget. 

The session on ‘The role of human editors in an AI world’ explored the role of editorial decision making and how this could develop in the future due to the increased use of AI tools by both authors and editors. One of the questions that was discussed was whether publishers have given authors enough guidance on how or when to use AI tools when preparing their research for publication. This is problematised by the fact that the industry hasn’t arrived at a single standard that authors should adhere to, which could lead to confusion. Although it was clear from the discussion that as an industry we do not yet have all the answers where AI is concerned, there was a clear sense that it should be embraced for its potential to support aspects of the editorial workflow and decision making rather than replace them.

One of my personal highlights from the conference was watching the award finalists lightning presentations. It was truly inspiring to hear about some of the innovative projects taking place within scholarly publishing communities. I was particularly impressed with the Forest of Biologists initiative which partners with the Woodland Trust to plant a tree in a UK forest for every research or review article published by The Company of Biologists. It was great to hear how this initiative aims to combat the loss of biodiversity within the UK and also how it directly involved young people from the local community. 

I am very grateful for the opportunity to attend the ALPSP conference. The conference really helped me understand more about the scholarly publishing industry as a whole, outside of my day-to-day role. It was great to be able to talk to people from a range of different publishers and  at various stages within their careers. The conference ultimately made me feel very excited for my future in scholarly publishing and I hope to be able to attend again in the future.

About the ALPSP Rising Star Award 2024

This award aims to recognise potential in early career individuals. The winners are given the opportunity and financial support to attend the ALPSP Annual Conference in person and write a short review of their experiences of the meeting. The ALPSP Rising Star Award is sponsored by Publishers' Licensing Services.

The winners of this year's Rising Star Award are:

• Hazel Rowland, IOP Publishing
• Anna Savage, BMJ
• Ella Gibbs, Bristol University Press
• Heather Townsend, Bristol University Press
• Melody (Zhuxin) Zhang, Wiley

ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards

Thank you to all our speakers, sponsors and attendees for making the ALPSP 2024 Conference and Awards such a success. Catch up on the session recordings. We will be returning to the Hilton Manchester Deansgate Hotel next year from 10-12 September 2025. For more information, visit our website.

About the author

Ella Gibbs is the Journals Executive at Bristol University Press. 

She is the primary editorial contact and development lead for a number of journals, supporting editors, authors and reviewers. Ella began working in scholarly publishing in 2021 as an Editorial Assistant.

Strength in numbers: the power of collaboration for research integrity

by - Gráinne McNamara, Research Integrity / Publication Ethics Manager, Karger - Silver sponsor of the ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards 2024.

In scholarly publishing, the term ‘research integrity’ is increasingly discussed and its significance to the ecosystem is growing. With the dominance of paper mills in the consciousness of research integrity professionals, matched only by the emerging threat posed by Generative AI, a reoccurring theme has emerged in these discussions: collaboration. 

Increasingly, no longer are research integrity teams operating largely in isolation within their respective publishers, interacting only in specific contexts, such as COPE forums or webinars, or when a multi-journal complaint necessitates alignment. Particularly in the last three years, we have seen a diversification in the venues at which research integrity teams interact. In the spirit of the infamously misattributed proverb “If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far, go together”, this expansion of touchpoints between publishers’ research integrity teams should be expected to have a positive effect on the trustworthiness of the scholarly publishing landscape. 

As a medium-sized publisher publishing over 90 journals in the health sciences, with a small research integrity team, Karger Publishers is particularly well placed to see how this growth in collaboration can be beneficial. Reflecting on how this has impacted us and the industry overall, we can see that great progress has been made as well as several trends and areas for growth.

Technology

The most obvious advantage of combining forces for a publisher the size of Karger or for smaller emerging or society publishers is the enhanced availability of new technologies. The STM Integrity Hub was established to foster collaboration “between publishers of all sorts, shapes and sizes”. The development of tools through the hub has enabled the detection of manuscript submission irregularities faster than for each participant operating in isolation. For example, the first-of-its-kind detection of duplicate submissions across publishers via the STM Hub allowed publishers to discover violations of our Editorial Policies early in peer review. By having this information, we ensure peer review resources are directed to compliant submissions, critical at this point when peer reviewer time is limited. Inter-publisher collaboration for duplicate submission detection received a boost recently with the announcement that Elsevier’s full text analysis for matching manuscripts would be made available to the STM Integrity Hub, making it more difficult for infracting submissions to evade detection. According to this August 2024 announcement, 12 publishers were using this tool, including Karger. The maximum effectiveness of this tool can only be realised by full adoption across publishers, and we hope to see this number grow.

This year we have seen more examples of publishers working together to improve integrity tools. In March 2024, Wiley announced that Sage and IEEE would be partnering in the testing of their Papermill Detection service. While neither Sage nor IEEE could be classified as a small or medium-sized publisher, this collaboration perpetuates the growing trend of technology sharing between publishers for mutual benefit that we can expect to see continue.

Information 

A challenge for any research integrity team in 2024 is keeping up to date with the latest developments and threats across the industry. Here again, we are seeing how collaboration is supporting the work, particularly of smaller teams, allowing them to focus on maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record while staying informed. The COPE and STM study into the scale and impact of paper mills on publishers in 2022, to which Karger contributed data and information, marked the beginning of an increasingly collaborative effort to combat paper mills. This translated into a COPE working group on the topic, of which Karger is a member, continuing to this year’s at the World Conference of Research Integrity where paper mills were one of the key topics of discussion. Open communication between affected parties about paper mills will need to continue as long as the threat exists as publishers of all sizes try to stay ahead through the newest information and trends.

An abundance of new research integrity tools have become available in the last 3 years to help publishers uphold the highest integrity standards, no matter their scale of operation. However, testing and piloting new technologies is a time-consuming necessity for research integrity teams. In addition to the collaborative information sharing we’ve seen through the STM Integrity Hub duplicate submission detection, the Hub's Image Alteration and Duplications Working Group supports the community by providing an overview of the available image integrity tools and their features, allowing publishers to make informed decisions and comparisons between available products. In a sea of information, crowd-sourcing trusted information can make the difference for a small or medium-sized publisher to save time that can be invested into misconduct detection.

Expertise 

A product of information and technology sharing is the enhanced expertise of research integrity professionals at publishers, as well as in those working more broadly in the scholarly communication ecosystem with an interest in research integrity. COPE has long been a hub of experience sharing between members and in 2024 this continued with the launch of formal Advisor roles for volunteers to share knowledge and expertise. We have also started to see the development of subject-specialised expertise-sharing collaboration. In the physical sciences, three publishers established the ‘Purpose-led Publishing’ initiative in which participants defined and committed to “a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communication”. Whether we will see more examples of subject-specialised publishers of various sizes coming together to define standards for their area remains to be seen. 

On the other end of the specialisation spectrum, the United2Act initiative, of which Karger is a signatory and member of Working Group 2, is a prime example of the wider research integrity community coming together and translating expertise and leveraging technology into tangible outcomes to combat the threat of paper mills. Furthermore, many of the groups’ outputs, for example, educational resources and trust marker development, are likely to have benefits far beyond the initial scope of paper mills.

Taking the lessons learned from publisher-publisher communication to the wider research integrity community is an integral step in embedding research integrity throughout the scholarly communication cycle. At Karger, we have seen the benefits of collaborating with larger and smaller publishers in improving our detection capabilities and expertise. We plan to continue, with our colleagues across publishers and other organizations with an interest in research integrity, collaborating to advance upholding research integrity standards. Naturally, the benefits of collaboration are not limited to strengthening research integrity. A recent blog in this series provided a view from the publishing systems perspective on the necessity and benefits of collaboration. We will undoubtedly see publisher-publisher and publisher-systems collaboration grow in the coming years as bad actors continue to pose a threat to the integrity of the scholarly record. By actively seeking collaboration, publishers of all sizes can build on each other’s technology, information and expertise of each other and go far and fast, together.

About the author

Dr. Gráinne McNamara is the Research Integrity / Publication Ethics Manager at Karger Publishers, where she and her team are engaged in developing research integrity policies, conducting investigations and advising researchers on best practice.

She has worked in research integrity in publishing since 2017 and is grateful to all the researchers and colleagues who have, and continue to, share their experience and expertise in that time.

www.karger.com

ALPSP Annual Conference 2024: A Review by Hazel Rowland

ALPSP Annual Conference 2024: A Review by ALPSP Rising Star Awards Winner, Hazel Rowland, Associate Marketing Manager, IOP Publishing 

My first ALPSP Conference Manchester 2024

My usual experience of conferences is manning the booth and talking with delegates. Being on the other side of the table was a fun experience, and receiving a Rising Star Award was an honour. You could feel a buzz in the air throughout the week. Everyone was eager to discuss interesting topics and innovations. It was very inspiring.

I found discussions on the accessibility of research extremely interesting. Highlighting barriers such as language, funding, and limited internet access in some regions. Solutions included AI for translation and editing, tailored OA models and initiatives supporting access to research in various formats, especially in the global south.

A debate I found very interesting was on what makes research “impactful”, and the importance of research visibility. Knowing your audience and understanding what the research is for is key in order to determine its impact. For example, local research is integral for sharing important knowledge about specific elements relevant to the local region, but might be understood, or cited less, on a global scale. How can we (and should we) define global impact when research may be highly impactful locally?– a very interesting question. But one that highlighted the importance of knowing your audience and understanding who and what the research is for to recognise its impact.

I cannot leave out the topic of AI ─a regular discussion in more than just scholarly publishing. AI is a tool that we can use to make our industry work more efficiently, more accessible and more innovative. Discussions pointed out that it can be used to analyse and understand our marketing audiences so we can connect the relevant audience with the research. Additionally, it can be used in innovative ways to help identify and detect bad actors in research integrity. AI can also be used to aid accessibility, reducing language and accessibility barriers.

There were discussions on whether AI would be taking over and an inspiring point was made by the opening keynote speaker Jake Okechukwu Effodu, who said “think back to when the internet was predicted to eliminate the need for libraries, or when ebooks were thought to signal the death of print publishing. These technologies transformed but they did not replace, so generative AI cannot replace”. Despite AI’s issues like inheriting bias and regurgitating content, discussions focused on harnessing it for the benefit of scholarly publishing.

About the ALPSP Rising Star Award 2024

This award aims to recognise potential in early career individuals. The winners are given the opportunity and financial support to attend the ALPSP Annual Conference in person and write a short review of their experiences of the meeting. The ALPSP Rising Star Award is sponsored by Publishers' Licensing Services.

The winners of this year's Rising Star Award are:

• Hazel Rowland, IOP Publishing
• Anna Savage, BMJ
• Ella Gibbs, Bristol University Press
• Heather Townsend, Bristol University Press
• Melody (Zhuxin) Zhang, Wiley

ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards

Thank you to all our speakers, sponsors and attendees for making the ALPSP 2024 Conference and Awards such a success. We will be returning to the Hilton Manchester Deansgate Hotel next year from 10-12 September 2025. The call for topics is open until 1 December. For more information, visit our website.

About the author

Hazel Rowland, Associate Marketing Manager, IOP Publishing

Hazel Rowland is an Associate Marketing Manager at IOP Publishing, in the Content and Engagement Marketing department.  She works primarily on developing and implementing strategies and campaigns focusing on author loyalty, author awards and early career researcher support initiatives.

Hazel joined the scholarly publishing world in 2017 as a Marketing Assistant for IOP Publishing, and has been continuously developing her knowledge, career and experiences to aid the global scientific community.

The Developing Effects of Peer Review Growth

Causes, Consequences, and Future Potential

By Lizi Dawes, CEO, PA EDitorial, Sponsor of the ALPSP Impact Award and the ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing 2024.

My journey to this point has been one of unexpected twists and turns, defying the linear career paths often expected in the peer review world. Being raised in a family where the office and home blended together, I quickly developed a passion for technology and a keen understanding of the need for processes that had to be fluid in response to shifting demands and trends. These skills have served me well, especially since entering academic publishing and peer review management, where I have seen many changes since I began over thirteen years ago.

Now, I find myself honoured to be invited to write this piece for ALPSP, whose Impact Awards are successfully in their second year: a testament to the power of initiatives, projects, and collaborations that can bring change within the scholarly publishing realm.

When asked to discuss peer review, I could write about many things, such as reflections and insights from my experiences in the industry. I could especially tell you why I feel so passionate about the subject; the list is long, but my main reasons include:

• Breadth of perspectives – it has a major role in providing diverse perspectives and expertise while delivering valuable feedback.
• Robust and reliable research – it’s a collective process leading to the development of more robust and reliable research.
• Collaboration and community – it fosters a collaborative environment within the academic community.
• Knowledge and ideas exchange – it offers an exchange of ideas, knowledge sharing, and exploring new research directions.
• Mitigating bias and promoting diversity – it’s crucial in mitigating and addressing biases and promoting diversity.
• Recognition for researchers – it increases recognition and expert status for researchers with published peer-reviewed work.
• Professional advancement opportunities – it provides opportunities for funding, collaboration, and professional advancement.
• Ethical and integrity protection – it exists for a fundamental reason – an ‘Old Guard’ for ethics and integrity.

Yet, while nearly all these thoughts on the subject are equally weighted, one in particular stands above the rest.

• The impact of peer review growth – Ultimately, it’s a subject of two halves – challenges and solutions – something I relish the potential of.

Some may see growth as a problem, but invariably, it isn’t. What growth can bring – good and bad – and how we deal with those two things can substantially impact our profession.

As with every system, peer review has its shortcomings. When something grows, so do these shortcomings unless we grapple with them at their root level. This is an exciting prospect as it means we can actively engage in how our profession develops in the short- and long-term future.

The Systemic Roots of Peer Review

At the core of these challenges is possibly the ‘publish or perish’ culture, which is often considered the source of an unsustainable torrent of research papers, straining the capacity of the peer review system to keep pace.

Additionally, those with peer review responsibilities are a relatively small subset of scholars, yet there is an abundance of outlets for publication, each demanding its own cadre of reviewers.

There are also less obvious challenges that not only impact growth but also provide us with opportunities to make positive and encouraging changes. Some of these challenges include:

• The effect of the pandemic: COVID-19 undoubtedly acted as a catalyst for amplifying some of the core issues faced by peer review.
• The decrease in tenured academics: there has been a reduction in the proportion of tenured faculty members, who traditionally shouldered a significant share of peer review duties as part of their academic service.
• Slower turnaround times: due to a lack of available and/or willing reviewers, delays in the peer review process can often stall scholars’ careers and hinder the timely dissemination of research findings.
• Reliance on volunteers: a small fraction of academics carry most of the workload, with only around 20% contributing to 94% of peer review work. [1]
• Lack of transparency: sometimes, the lack of transparency can also cause challenges, such as the anonymity of the peer reviewers, making it difficult to assess the objectivity and qualifications of the individuals providing the feedback.
• The challenges of generative AI: it’s also important not to forget the emerging challenges of AI. While some researchers see the potential for AI to enhance the process, others are wary of the ethical implications and the potential for misuse. Around 35% of researchers feel that generative AI tools will negatively impact the peer review process. [2]

Knowing the obvious and the hidden challenges of any system puts those within it at an advantage. One of the things I love about peer review is that we are always, as a profession, exploring how we can better serve the system, improve the processes, and ensure, collaboratively, that we are upholding the values that it stands for.

Potential Solutions: A Multifaceted Approach

Addressing the challenges facing peer review necessitates a multifaceted approach that tackles the underlying systemic issues while exploring innovative solutions to alleviate the immediate pressures on the system.

Inclusive Reviewer Recruitment

Journals could adopt more inclusive strategies for recruiting peer reviewers, tapping into a wider pool of experts, including non-tenured scholars, PhD researchers, industry professionals, and underrepresented minorities. This approach can help address geographical biases and ensure a more diverse and representative review process.

Additionally, creating a centralised database of reviewers accessible to all journals could streamline the process of identifying and engaging qualified reviewers, reducing the administrative burden on individual journals.

Incentivising Peer Review Through Recognition

While financial compensation may remain a contentious issue, there is a growing consensus on the need for greater recognition and incentives for peer review contributions. Universities and research institutions could explicitly acknowledge and reward outstanding peer review efforts as part of tenure and promotion evaluations, fostering a culture that values this critical academic service.

Furthermore, integrating peer review activities into platforms like ORCID and Publons could enhance the visibility and recognition of individual scholars’ review contributions, potentially motivating greater participation.

Embracing Open Peer Review

The growing movement towards open peer review could foster a more transparent and collaborative approach. Initiatives like publishing review letters and allowing for voluntary identification of reviewers can help build trust and accountability within the system.

Prioritising Time-Sensitive Research

To address the issue of slow turnaround times, journals could prioritise the review of time-sensitive research, ensuring that critical findings are disseminated promptly.

Leveraging Technological Innovations

It is also crucial to recognise the potential of technological advancements, such as improvements to online manuscript and review submission systems, to streamline the peer review process and enhance the overall experience for authors and reviewers. This is a particular passion of mine, along with embracing the positive powers of AI while being mindful of its pitfalls.

The Way Forward: Collaboration and Adaptation

Addressing the peer review crisis demands a collaborative and holistic effort from all stakeholders within the academic ecosystem, including researchers, institutions, publishers, funding bodies and peer review management services such as PA EDitorial.

By fostering open dialogue, embracing innovative solutions, and adapting to the evolving challenges and growth of scholarly communication, the academic community can collectively navigate this challenge and safeguard the integrity of the peer review process – a cornerstone of scientific progress and knowledge dissemination.

Nurturing a Culture of Learning and Support

At the heart of what we do at PA EDitorial is our approach to deepening our commitment to nurturing a culture of learning and support within our organisation.

This approach isn’t just aimed at our team of freelancers, who we believe all have their very own super skills. We also strive to build teams that can help the academic research community. My role in this is contributing to and building up the community by supporting peer review in every way I can, from attending events where I can learn more and develop my knowledge and skills to working closely with journals – finding solutions to their problems and options for their challenges.

We all have a part to play in ensuring that the peer review process is upheld and ready to adapt to the changes that time inevitably brings.

What remains constant is my excitement and curiosity about the future of peer review and its influence on global research, along with my admiration for how all research disciplines affect every member of society.

Together, we must evolve and innovate within academia to preserve research integrity and guarantee the effective sharing of knowledge. Our work is crucial and ultimately benefits everyone.

[1] https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/the-peer-review-system-is-broken-we-asked-academics-how-to-fix-it/

[2] https://ioppublishing.org/state-of-peer-review-2024-results/

About the author

Lizi Dawes is CEO of PA Editorial. Find out more.

Publishing Systems Can Enable Collaboration and Build Community

By Tony Alves, SVP of Product Management, HighWire Press - Silver sponsor of the ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards 2024.

For almost 35 years, from my early days as an editorial assistant to today as SVP of product at HighWire Press, I’ve been observing how publishing systems can foster collaboration and build a more connected and trustworthy scholarly community. The publishing process is a highly automated ecosystem where advanced workflow systems coordinate communication among authors, editors, and reviewers. These platforms foster collaboration, streamline workflows, and accelerate the time from manuscript submission to publication. On 5 June at the SSP Annual Meeting, I had the privilege of moderating an Industry Breakout Session titled “Publishing Systems Can Enable Collaboration and Build Community,” I was joined by Chris Shillum from ORCID, Dukhbhanjan Sujlana from Convey, Yvonne Campfens from OA Switchboard, Hylke Koers from STM Solutions, Jessica Thibodeau from Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), and Oleg Ruchayskiy from Prophy Science. Together, we explored how integrated technologies are transforming the scholarly publishing ecosystem and creating a virtuous circle that benefits all stakeholders.

I started by introducing the concept of the scholarly community as an interconnected system. At its core, publishing is a collaborative endeavor that involves researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, as well as the public, which both funds and benefits from our work. The glue that holds this ecosystem together is the technology that enables efficient workflows and access to the tools we need to support scholarship. Systems like the one we’ve been building at HighWire, called DigiCorePro, streamline everything from manuscript submission to publication, fostering collaboration among all players while ensuring that scholarly research moves quickly and smoothly through the publishing process.

A key focus of the session was the role of persistent identifiers (PIDs) in fostering transparency and trust in scholarly communication. Chris Shillum from ORCID was the first to address this topic. ORCID IDs are essential for linking researchers to their work, making it easier for institutions, funders, and publishers to accurately attribute contributions and track outcomes. Chris highlighted how ORCID’s integration across platforms reduces administrative burdens for researchers, allowing them to focus on their work rather than paperwork. ORCID’s role in peer review enables reviewers to link their reviews to their ORCID profiles, promoting transparency and incentivizing participation in peer review, which is crucial as we work to address the reviewer crisis.

Another area where transparency and efficiency intersect is financial disclosure, which is where Dukhbhanjan (DK) Sujlana and Convey come in. DK introduced Convey, a web-based platform that allows researchers and other individuals to manage financial disclosures in one place. This system simplifies the disclosure process by eliminating redundant data entry, ensuring that individuals can share their information with multiple organizations seamlessly. encouraging adoption of Convey by academic institutions, societies, and publishers can help in maintaining trust in the research process.

Yvonne Campfens from the OA Switchboard discussed how the community-led initiative is simplifying the exchange of open access (OA) publication information. The OA Switchboard acts as a centralized hub for metadata exchange, reducing complexity and administrative burdens for publishers, funders, and institutions. By allowing all relevant parties to be notified when an OA article is published, the OA Switchboard streamlines compliance with funding requirements and OA agreements. What stood was the emphasis on simplicity and collaboration—two principles that are essential as we work to make open access more efficient and scalable.

Hylke Koers from STM Solutions introduced the STM Integrity Hub, an initiative that aims to protect research integrity through the use of data intelligence and advanced technology. The Integrity Hub connects publishers to external databases like PubPeer and Retraction Watch to screen manuscripts for signs of research misconduct, including papermill activity and duplicate submissions. Hylke’s presentation highlighted the importance of collaboration in maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing. By providing a centralized platform where publishers can access a wide range of data and tools, the Integrity Hub helps to ensure that research is trustworthy and that misconduct is caught before publication.

Jessica Thibodeau of CCC, showcased the Scholarly Communications Suite. This suite of tools helps streamline the management of open access agreements and Article Processing Charges (APCs), leveraging persistent identifiers like Ringgold IDs to ensure accuracy and compliance. Most compelling was how CCC’s tools enhance data interoperability while improving workflow efficiency for publishers and researchers. Disambiguating author affiliations and track research outputs is vital for ensuring that scholarly work is accurately represented and recognized.

Lastly, Oleg Ruchayskiy from Prophy Science tackled one of the most pressing issues in our industry: the peer review crisis. Oleg demonstrated how Prophy uses big data and AI to match reviewers with manuscripts, creating digital “fingerprints” for researchers based on their publication history. This system makes it easier to find qualified reviewers quickly and ensures that conflicts of interest are detected before they become a problem. Oleg also shared exciting upcoming features, including fraud detection and reviewer availability tracking, which can increase trust and improve efficiency.

Throughout the session, one thing became clear: collaboration is at the heart of scholarly publishing. Whether it’s ORCID ensuring that researchers are properly credited for their work, Convey simplifying financial disclosures, the OA Switchboard streamlining metadata exchange, or the STM Integrity Hub safeguarding research integrity, these technologies all share a common goal—building a stronger, more trustworthy scholarly community. As publishers, we have the responsibility to integrate these tools into our workflows to enhance transparency, efficiency, and integrity.

I concluded the session by emphasizing how publishing systems like DigiCorePro are crucial in addressing key challenges, such as diversifying reviewer pools, improving content integrity, and reducing time-to-publication. Publishing systems integrate innovative tools into seamless workflows, fostering collaboration and community-building across the scholarly ecosystem. The SSP 2024 Industry Breakout Session highlighted that the future of scholarly publishing relies on leveraging technology and collaboration to create a more efficient, transparent, and resilient ecosystem that meets the evolving needs of researchers, institutions, funders, and the public.

About the author

Tony Alves, SVP of Product Management, HighWire Press

Email: tony.alves@highwirepress.com

www.highwirepress.com