ABSTRACT This an exploration of the use of AI in research and writing. It builds upon the ‘Harbingers’ project, an international and longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) and scholarly communication. In the fourth phase of the project, we returned to the theme of AI, in particular AI as ‘ghostwriter’. Our sources are transcripts of conversational, open‐form interviews with over 60 ECRs from Britain, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Russia, and other countries. For an initial analysis of the transcripts, we used Google NotebookLM. An overarching and thematic summary of the data was produced in minutes, that would otherwise have occupied our research team for weeks. The unprompted text, immediately plausible and coherent, was regarded by all national interviewers as impressive. Here, using a relatively small, convenience sample, we compare the AI generated summaries both against our original data and those first impressions. We reflect upon our own experience of using AI and that of our interviewees. This paper is about how we used AI as an experiment, our reaction to it, how that chimes, resonates, echoes the experiences of the ECRs. It is a calibration for our future data analysis.

Summary This article proposes a DOI‐first referencing model as a simplified and identifier‐centered approach to scholarly citation. It discusses the opportunities of DOI‐based referencing for improving efficiency, interoperability, and integration with digital research infrastructure while acknowledging disciplinary diversity and identifier limitations. The paper argues that prioritizing persistent identifiers can modernize citation practices in an increasingly digital and AI‐assisted scholarly publishing environment.

ABSTRACT This study investigated how Croatian scholars in the social sciences and humanities assess the credibility of academic journals, focusing on the influence of journal characteristics, academic discipline, rank, and cognitive style. Using a mixed‐method design with 1307 participants, we manipulated information about three journal characteristics (peer review, scope/title, institutional affiliations) across eight scenarios. Participants rated the credibility of each journal scenario and completed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Results showed that each positive journal characteristic, as well as its combinations, significantly increased perceived credibility. Scholars with higher publishing expectations were more critical than their lower‐ranking peers, whilst no differences emerged between disciplinary areas. Reflective cognitive style, as measured by the CRT, was negatively correlated with credibility ratings, particularly for scenarios depicting lower‐quality journals. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two‐factor structure, suggesting that scholars tend to categorise journals into credible and non‐credible types. These findings underscore the combined influence of structural and cognitive factors in scholarly decision‐making and highlight the role of reflective thinking in safeguarding research integrity. Implications are discussed for research policy, research training, and efforts to mitigate the impact of predatory publishing.

Keynotes AI‐generated video summaries can capture attention as engaging teasers, effectively encouraging the reading of full scientific texts. New AI tools like Google's NotebookLM allow authors to automatically convert manuscripts into engaging video narratives. Video abstracts significantly enhance the discoverability, accessibility, and social media impact of scholarly research. Publishers and researchers should consider integrating AI‐generated video options into submission workflows to align with modern digital habits.

ABSTRACT Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolution. Peer review's formal institutionalisation in the mid‐20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias and institutional inertia. The study aims to synthesise the evolution, practices and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed‐methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modelling (Business Process Model and Notation–BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre‐publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing and the Publish‐Review‐Curate (PRC) model. While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post‐publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability and institutional priorities. The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigour with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long‐term impact on equity and epistemic norms.

Key Points GenAI exposes structural weaknesses in descriptive, template‐driven review formats. arXiv and AI‐native preprint platforms illustrate divergent infrastructural responses to AI‐generated content. Review articles function as knowledge infrastructure, not merely as summaries of prior work. Reflexive, agenda‐setting reviews remain resistant to automation and retain high editorial value. The future of review articles lies in function and interpretation, not volume or exhaustiveness.

ABSTRACT This study explores the experiences and perspectives of journal editors in Australia, focusing on their pathways into editorship, required skills, challenges and issues relating to recognition, workload and succession planning. Based on in‐depth qualitative interviews with 27 editors across a range of disciplines and publishing models, we analyse the critical yet often undervalued role of editors in the scholarly publishing landscape. While editors acknowledged the professional benefits of the role, they also highlighted substantial challenges, including struggles with workload, limited institutional support or recognition and the continued reliance on volunteer labour. The findings reveal tensions arising from the increasing commercialisation of academic publishing, research metrics and the changing demands of academic work. Through a focus on individual experiences, this study contributes new insights into the realities of journal editorship and its implications for academic careers, university workload management and the sustainability of Australian journal publishing.

ABSTRACT Despite the dominance of English‐language journals in international databases, the global scholarly publishing ecosystem is far more multilingual. This study presents the first comprehensive analysis of Iran's journal publishing landscape, uncovering a complex ecosystem of 3250 active and 639 discontinued journals published in English, Persian and Arabic. Drawing on multiple national databases and journal websites, we examine language, subject area, ownership, publishing platforms, open access models and indexation status. Our findings reveal distinct patterns: Persian‐language journals dominate in social sciences and humanities, while English‐language journals are concentrated in medical and STEM fields. All journals are locally owned and use domestically developed journal platforms with right‐to‐left language support. The vast majority (99.2%) are open access. Sanctions have limited access to international infrastructure, prompting local innovations such as the Digital Object Recognizer (DOR), a national alternative to DOI. In contrast to mainstream practice, most Iranian journals pay peer reviewers and use a two‐part article processing charge (APC): a non‐refundable fee at submission to cover peer review and a second payment upon acceptance. This study shows the scale and specificity of scholarly publishing in a non‐Western context and challenges the database‐centric view of global publishing by foregrounding local responses to structural constraints.