Welcome to ReviewerOne’s first scholarly publishing round up of 2026. This week, we bring together conversations from across the global research ecosystem that point to a shared moment of recalibration.

Rethinking peer review in the age of AI

A recent LinkedIn article by Venu Prasad Menon reflects on how generative AI is moving from the margins of research workflows into the core of peer review and research integrity. Drawing on real-world use cases, Menon outlines where AI is already adding value, such as submission triage, reviewer matching, and detection of fraud or image manipulation. At the same time, Menon is clear about the risks involved: potential for bias, gaming, hallucinations, confidentiality breaches, and the erosion of trust when AI is used without transparency. Rather than framing AI as a replacement for reviewers, Menon argues for a human-led, AI-assisted model grounded in clear policies, accountability, and editorial judgment. The central message is a measured one: AI can strengthen peer review, but only when it is designed to support human decision-making rather than bypass it.
Read the full article here

The economics and equity of open-access publishing

Phie Jacobs captures the intense reactions to the US National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) proposal to cap open-access publishing fees. While the policy is intended to curb what NIH sees as unreasonably high article processing charges (APCs), the response from researchers, institutions, and publishers reveals deep unease. The cap could limit where NIH-funded researchers can publish, disproportionately affecting early-career scientists and those without access to supplementary funding. This also surfaces a broader structural tension: researchers are required to publish openly and frequently, often in high-prestige journals, yet the costs of doing so often exceed what grants can reasonably support. Jacobs additionally outlines alternative models under consideration, making clear that the debate is less about a single policy and more about who should bear the costs and responsibility for reforming a deeply imbalanced publishing system.
Read the full article here

Lessons from two decades of open peer review

Barbara Ervens, Ken S. Carslaw, Thomas Koop, and Ulrich Pöschl’s article in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) , a journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), reflects on more than 25 years of interactive open-access publishing and community-based peer review within the EGU journal ecosystem. Drawing on the long-running experience of ACP, the authors examine how publicly posted discussions, transparent peer review reports, and open community commentary have shaped scientific discourse and quality assurance over time. They highlight how this model has supported faster dissemination of research, clearer accountability in editorial decision-making, and a permanent, visible record of critique and revision. They also underscore the educational value of open peer review, particularly for early-career researchers who can observe how scientific evaluation unfolds in practice. Rather than presenting open peer review as a one-size-fits-all solution, the authors position it as a mature, evolving approach that demonstrates how transparency, when thoughtfully implemented, can strengthen trust and rigor in scholarly publishing.
Read the full article here

Shifting expectations for doctoral research

This report in The Hindu, covers a significant policy change in India, where the University Grants Commission (UGC) announced its decision to discontinue the requirement for PhD scholars to publish journal articles before submitting their thesis. The move is intended to reduce pressure to publish for compliance and to allow doctoral candidates to focus more fully on the depth and quality of their research. While publication is still encouraged as part of academic development, it is no longer a mandatory condition for earning a PhD. The article situates this decision within ongoing concerns about research quality, predatory publishing, and the unintended consequences of publication-driven evaluation systems, particularly for early-stage researchers. This decision is also receiving mixed reactions among Indian academics.
Read the full article here

What did you read to kickstart the new year. If came across something that got you thinking, do share it in the comments below.