The Antenna

Long before the current kerfuffle about LLMs, Generative AI Artwork, and asking your tax preparation chatbot for a cookie recipe, the concept of artificial intelligence and synthetic life was a […]

From the Introduction to the Report (R49189): A chatbot is an application or a program that simulates human conversation by generating responses to user prompts. While chatbots1 have existed for approximately 60 years, technical advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have expanded their uses over the last 10 years from customer service to emotional support. This has […]

The post AI Chatbots as Companions: Overview, Uses, and Considerations for Congress (New Report From the Congressional Research Service) appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

From Music Connection: Johnny Cash is one of the most important, influential, and respected artists in the history of recorded music. And now a collection of his personal archives will find its permanent home at Belmont University, representing a historic partnership among the Cash family, the John R. Cash Revocable Trust and Belmont. The collection […]

The post Acquisitions: Belmont University Acquires Johnny Cash’s Archives appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

FAPESP supports the entire scientific publishing ecosystem by funding scholarly communication infrastructure, with particular emphasis on its support for the SciELO program, one of the world’s leading open access publishing initiatives and a key resource for journals in Brazil and Latin America. Across diverse fields of knowledge, our research groups produce high-quality science and participate in major global collaboration networks. …Read More →

The post Publishing Ecosystem: Indexing, Technical Infrastructure, and the Future, Interview with Carmino Antonio de Souza, Vice President of FAPESP first appeared on SciELO in Perspective.

The first real evidence on AI and archival labor — and why counting jobs is the wrong test

Today's guest post asks: Do trust markers and other systematic fraud-prevention practices exclude unaffiliated authors from contributing to the scholarly record?

The post Guest Post — The Guild and the Gap: What One Rejection Revealed About the Cost of Credentialism appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

From Investor’s Business Daily (IBD): or IBD via MSN Steve Potash was fed up with shuffling forms and documents when he began his career as a lawyer. So he developed technology to do the job for him. “When I started my law practice, I had to produce so much paperwork,” recalled Potash, founder of OverDrive, the largest […]

The post IBD Publishes Profile of OverDrive Founder and Chairman, Steve Potash appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

The central risk of AI in scholarly publishing is therefore not hallucination but cognitive debt: the gradual erosion of the human capacities that give scholarship its originality, integrity, and meaning.

The post Reading Between the Lines, Part 2: Cognitive Debt and the Adaptive Publisher appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

From a MIT Blog Post by Anantha P. Chandrakasan, Provost & Ian A. Waitz, Vice President for Research: We write today to share the outputs of the Working Group on Scholarly Content and Generative AI, which was co-chaired by Chris Bourg, MIT Libraries Director, and Claire Schneider, Counsel in the Office of the General Counsel […]

The post Outputs From MIT’s Working Group on Scholarly Content and Generative AI Now Available appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

We have some rather unusual news to share: Crossref fees are going down again. At its meeting in Paris earlier this month, the Crossref Board approved two further recommendations from the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) project: effective 1st January 2027, we will reduce the majority of Content Registration fees for all 25,000 members, and remove fees for back-year records altogether.

Content Registration fees haven’t increased in around 20 years, and this is the first significant change to them in that time—downwards. Since these fees account for the largest share of Crossref’s revenue (around 60%), and since every member registers DOI records, these changes reach further than anything we’ve announced under the RCFS project so far.

What’s changing

1. Most Content Registration fees are reduced from January 2027. We’re simplifying record fees to just a few price points: most records currently priced at USD 1.00—journal articles, conference papers, book titles, dissertations, working papers, grants—will move to USD 0.95, and records at USD 0.25—book chapters, posted content (including preprints), and first peer reviews—will move to USD 0.20. Components and datasets stay at USD 0.06. One fee goes up slightly in the name of simplification: standards move from USD 0.15 to USD 0.20.

Simplification isn’t an end in itself, either: fewer price points take us towards one of our stated goals: making fees more predictable. Simplifying our fees from 16 different prices down to three means organisations can more easily estimate their costs and will allow us to offer a fee calculator in the future.

Record type (current-year)Current feeFrom January 2027Journal articleUSD 1.00USD 0.95Conference paperUSD 1.00USD 0.95Book titleUSD 1.00USD 0.95DissertationUSD 1.00USD 0.95Working paper / technical reportUSD 1.00USD 0.95Grant / award / use of facilitiesUSD 1.00USD 0.95Book chapterUSD 0.25USD 0.20Posted content (incl. preprints)USD 0.25USD 0.20Peer review (first only)USD 0.25USD 0.20StandardUSD 0.15USD 0.20ComponentUSD 0.06USD 0.06 (no change)DatasetUSD 0.06USD 0.06 (no change)

2. All fees for back-year records are removed. Back-year records are works produced more than two full years ago (so in 2027, anything published in 2024 or earlier). Starting in January 2027, registering them will be free for all record types. We started piloting this approach with the back-year fee waiver for grant records introduced this January, and we’re now extending it to all members and all record types.

This is arguably the bigger of the two changes. For repositories, archives, national libraries, and other high-volume, low-budget collections—some of whom have told us plainly that Crossref was beyond their budgets—the cost of bringing decades of holdings into the scholarly record drops to zero. It also matters for existing members who haven’t had the chance to register historical records over the years, for archival digitisation projects, and for members absorbing another organisation’s unregistered backlist.

Why lower fees instead of continuing to invest?

Four reasons:

1. It’s not an either/or; we can reduce fees and invest.

We should be direct about scale and related plans: in consultation, members large and small told us frankly that a change from USD 1.00 to USD 0.95 wasn’t going to make a difference to them. We agree that five cents will not transform anyone’s budget. But it is a big change for Crossref, given our aim of deliberately reducing future surpluses in the years ahead and it signals our direction of travel.

2. It’s the responsible thing to do.

Crossref is in a healthy financial position. Revenue has grown steadily, through the growing volume of records registered with us and the long tail of thousands of new members rather than price rises. We met our target of holding twelve months’ operating expenses in reserve in 2023, and have run surpluses each year since. This puts us in the fortunate position of being able to lower our fees and still support our expenses. We act on our members’ behalf, so when revenue runs too far ahead of what’s needed to healthily run the organisation, the savings should find their way back to members. We’re also investing surplus funds into our systems and into community initiatives, through the framework our board agreed in November 2025; adjusting fees now is the other half of the same approach.

The combined changes are projected to reduce our Content Registration revenue by roughly USD 760K in 2027, around 5% of our total forecasted revenue. This is an intentional and manageable contraction, with growth in membership and record volumes expected to carry revenue forward from there, based on our 10-year revenue growth trend.

Taken as a package—alongside yesterday’s announcement of a major investment in redesigning our system—we think it’s a strong message from an open infrastructure: financial sustainability is a target to hit and maintain, and managing our finances responsibly and transparently is our obligation to the community.

3. It helps all members—and welcomes those we’ve been missing.

Nearly every member will pay less per record from 2027. And for the archives and repositories that register a great deal but operate on very little, free back-year registration removes what they’ve told us was the barrier to participating in Crossref at all.

4. It builds the Research Nexus.

More back-year records mean more raw material for our matching techniques, filling in more of the gaps and relationships in the scholarly record—citations, funding, affiliations, versions—which is a key goal. The record didn’t start two years ago, and neither should the metadata.

It was never just about the DOIs

It’s worth restating while we’re talking about per-record fees: registering a DOI has never really been the point. What members are paying for—and what the community gets—is the connective tissue of the scholarly record: 185 million records, more than two billion citation links, and metadata relationships spanning funding, affiliations, versions, and corrections—all matched and openly available to everyone through our APIs. It’s the metadata and the relationships, at that reach and scale, that turn a set of PIDs into a connected scholarly record. In fact, “PIDs are a means to an end” is the first of the six key positions in our new position paper on PIDs in research infrastructure policy, published this week.

The RCFS story so far

These decisions don’t stand alone; they’re the latest step in a program of work grounded in the fee principles our Board adopted in 2019 and formalised as RCFS following the July 2023 board meeting. The aims have stayed constant throughout: making fees more equitable, simplifying our complex fee schedule, and rebalancing revenue sources.

• 2023: RCFS launched; Research Consulting helped us identify the changes with the highest positive impact, narrowed to five projects.
• 2024: Research and consultation—surveys of over 1,000 members in the lowest fee tier, benchmarking against peer organisations, and interviews with non-member publishers about barriers to joining.
• 2025: The first fee changes approved—a new USD 200 membership tier for the lowest-resourced members, removal of volume discounts, and simplified peer review fees, all effective January 2026.
• January 2026: Grant registration fees halved and back-year grant fees waived as a two-year pilot to accelerate the Grant Linking System and the Research Nexus.
• January 2027: Reduced Content Registration fees for nearly all record types, with free DOI registration for all back-year records.

What’s next

The RCFS project continues. Work remains on rebalancing revenue from the use of our metadata (including Metadata Plus fees), on normalising the annual membership fee structure for our funder members, on the fee calculator mentioned above, and on monitoring the effects of all of these changes, including whether free back-year registration does what we hope it will for the completeness of the scholarly record.

As ever, Board motions are publicly available and summarised on our blog.

We’ll be discussing these changes and other directions of travel for Crossref and the Research Nexus at our annual meeting and board election, Crossref2026, on October 22nd. Save the date and join us there.

Our thanks go to our internal team and the Membership & Fees Committee for the hours spent scrutinising data and asking questions on the community’s behalf. Questions and comments are welcome in the comments below or in the dedicated RCFS category on the community forum, or email us via feedback@crossref.org anytime.

The article linked below (abstract, intro, snippets only; full-text paywalled) was recently published by The Journal of Academic Librarianship. Title Academic Search Literacy In The Age Of Generative Ai: A Conceptual Framework For Navigating the Search-Language Ecology Authors Chao Cai Purdue University , Jane K. Yatcilla Purdue University Source The Journal of Academic Librarianship Volume […]

The post Journal Article: “Academic Search Literacy in the Age of Generative AI: A Conceptual Framework For Navigating the Search-Language Ecology” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

A new Archivist of the United States was just confirmed. His hardest problem isn’t the famous documents. It’s what quietly disappears when records become data — as 103 letters between Hamilton and Was

Last Friday the next major version (v14.0.0) of the InvenioRDM repository software was released after many months of work involving lots of people (listed in the blog post). The changes and upgrade instructions are documented in detail the post on the Invenio blog. The most important change for

AI is now a permanent feature of the scholarly landscape. The question is no longer whether it should be used, but how it should be understood and governed.

The post Reading Between the Lines, Part 1: A Cognitive Framework for AI in Scholarly Publishing appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

The infrastructure that registers and distributes Crossref metadata has been running and growing for more than two decades. It now does considerably more than it was built to do, and it shows: two large, tightly coupled monoliths (Content System and REST API), where a change in one place risks breaking something in another.

In its July meeting, the Crossref board approved the use of Crossref surplus funds for a three-year project to accelerate the redesign of the Crossref system. Our plan is to use $1.6 million a year for three years (~USD $4.9M in total) from our surplus funds, which will help us set up a modern infrastructure consisting of separate services for the different functionalities that the Crossref system offers.

This infusion of time-limited resources will augment our existing team. We will continue to maintain the current system, add small improvements, fix bugs, and make schema changes. We’ve mapped out our time and capacity to ensure that we can keep the current system active and robust while building the new system at the same time. In the past, when we’ve attempted large redesign initiatives, we’ve done a code freeze on the existing system—we won’t be doing that this time. 25,000+ members and thousands of downstream services rely on the system daily, so we will continue to provide time and energy to support that while building for the future. As always, you can view our public roadmap to see progress with what we’re working on.

Background

Over the years, the board, leadership team, and staff have discussed the need to address long-term technical debt in the Crossref system and the need to move from a monolithic codebase to a more modern, manageable, resilient technology that recreates the Crossref system. We are aiming to do this through a set of connected services and functions that better meet our mission and enable the Research Nexus, our goal of a rich and reusable open network of relationships connecting research organisations, people, things, and actions.

Our colleagues Paul Davis and Sara Bowman described some of the current challenges and plans earlier this year in Hit refresh: redesigning our technical infrastructure. We migrated from a closed-source database to PostgreSQL in 2024, moved out of a physical data centre into the cloud in August 2025, and have steadily been deprecating older tools not fit for purpose, such as Event Data, Co-access and ‘old’ Metadata Manager while rebuilding replacements. That was some of the groundwork; now we’re rebuilding the centre.

The two largest components of the current architecture are the Content System (CS) and the REST API. Both function as monoliths. They use mono-repositories, and their internal components are tightly coupled. Over time, they have accumulated complexity, substantially expanding beyond their original purpose. Each of them is now responsible for many different functions, with different needs and characteristics. This monolithic and tightly coupled architecture makes it difficult to maintain, scale, or expand our system. Adding new functionality often requires workarounds, which further increases complexity and adds technical debt.

As a not-for-profit, any surplus we generate has three possible destinations: reserves, paying down debt, or reinvestment in the mission. We met our goal of holding twelve months of operating costs in reserve in 2023, and we carry no debt, so reinvestment is where the rest belongs. We aim to generate surpluses to ensure that we are operating within our means, but we don’t need to accumulate them.

Some of that reinvestment goes outside Crossref; this year we’ve supported other community initiatives and infrastructure that people rely on, totalling around $500,000. A large proportion of the rest should go where members will feel it.

Reinvestment also has to be the right shape. Under the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure, time-limited funds are used only for time-limited activities: day-to-day operations are covered by day-to-day revenue, and one-off funds go to one-off projects. A three-year rebuild, staffed by fixed-term roles embedded in existing teams, meets that test.

What will we rebuild?

At the end of 2024, we introduced a new structure with Crossref work happening within three cross-functional programs: Co-creation and Community Trends (CCT), Contributing to the Research Nexus (CRN), and Open and Sustainable Operations (OSO). The redesign of the Crossref system will also happen within these three programs. The approach we’ve taken is that we’ve identified the different functionalities of the current system, and divided these between the three programs. In the tables below, you can see which services will be rebuilt within each program.

Co-creation and Community Trends (CCT)

Name of componentWhat is it?What does it do?What will change with the rebuild?Internal APIs for UIsPurpose-built backends to serve various user interfaces. This is an architectural approach that we have recently begun using to build the new Metadata Manager record registration tool.Take data from sources such as the Postgres database or the data lake and provide it in a form that user interfaces can use.This approach will allow us to decouple existing interfaces from the legacy system codebase and build new ones as part of the other projects listed below.Member self-serviceA new interface for members to perform routine tasks related to their member account and user management.Currently, these tasks are performed in highly manual processes by the Membership team. In some cases, there are semi-manual processes in place, such as with title transfers, where members can fill out a request form on our website.A self-service portal powered by the new authentication and authorisation service (mentioned below) will lighten the workload of the Membership team. For example, we estimate that about 15% of member support tickets in 2025 represented contact updates which had to be handled manually.New Admin toolA user interface for members to perform routine tasks related to their DOI records and metadata submissions.Members can sign in and upload metadata submissions or queries in XML format, as well as view details about their past submissions. The current admin tool lives at doi.crossref.org.We will replace the current Admin tool with an interface that integrates with the new authentication and authorisation service and uses interstitial APIs for its functionality. The new interface will also be more accessible and usable.ORCID Auto-updateA workflow without a user interface or authentication with the Crossref system.Auto-update pushes metadata about works in the Crossref database to the ORCID API and asks researchers’ permission for Crossref to push further updates and additions.The main goal of rebuilding our ORCID Auto-update is to make it a standalone service, less entwined with the content system. We will also tweak functionality that we have been unable to make in recent years.ReportsA series of tables and dashboards presenting metadata from the Crossref database, including DOI resolutions, conflict reports, error reports, and participation reports.Most report interfaces are openly available via the Crossref website. They are used mostly by members to self-serve information about their metadata on the member, prefix, or title level.We will change the data source of these reports to the data lake and unify their overall architecture. On the frontend side, there is much scope for improving the usability and accessibility of these interfaces for greater analysis by members and the community.

Contributing to the Research Nexus (CRN)

Name of componentWhat is it?What does it do?What will change with the rebuild?Funder matchingMatching member-submitted funder metadata to a funder identifier.For works with funders and no funder identifier, match the funder name to a funder registry entry.Build a new matching architecture and match funder names to ROR identifiers. Matches are added directly to the REST API as asserted by Crossref.Preprint matchingFor registered journal articles, check if there is a corresponding preprint it can be linked to.Looks for an exact match between the title and authors. Currently notifies the preprint member via email who is obliged to add the relationship to their metadata (which Crossref reciprocates from journal article records).Research and test a new method for matching. Add matches directly to the REST API, marked as asserted by Crossref.Reference matchingFor references deposited without a DOI, look for a corresponding Crossref DOI and add those to the metadata (see our recent update on the scale of this service)Several different processes are used, depending on the completeness of the deposited metadata. Matching is carried out during the deposit process and added to the XML record.Research and test a new and further improved method for matching. Add matches to the REST API, marked as asserted by Crossref.XML APIA public API to deliver metadata in XML format.Use a DOI to look up metadata or construct an XML query.Reimplement separately from the deposit system. Re-evaluate the features.Metadata enrichmentSupplement member-submitted metadata with other information held by Crossref.Crossref metadata records have information added during deposit, including member information, citation counts, and relationships.Review current processes and identify those that can be separated from metadata submission. Where possible, build standalone services that create enrichments, preparing for additional third-party data sources.

Open and Sustainable Operations (OSO)

Name of componentWhat is it?What does it do?What will change with the rebuild?Authentication & AuthorisationAn identity management systemAuthenticate and authorise users to access the different Crossref tools and services.Improve security, allow for member and sponsor self-service to manage users and permissions across their teams and vendors.BillingA service to generate invoices and reports based on new record registrations per quarter.Generate a .csv of billable submissions and upload to our accounting system to generate invoices.Reduce technical debt and remove code from the legacy system; allow for point-in-time billing.NotificationsA service to send emails or callbacks to members as new DOI records are registered or existing ones updated.Transactional notifications on submission status. Additional notifications when works are cited by other works.Reduce/eliminate the number of emails sent, reduce technical debt, remove code from the legacy system.Handle systemUpdate and look up DOI in the Global Handle Registry.Registers the DOI string and associated landing page URL for redirection (DOI resolution).Implement better fallback and error handling to make connections with the Global Handle Registry more resilient.Deposit systemSystem that receives XML deposits from members.Processes deposits and makes them available to other systems, like the REST API.Separate out the different components of the deposit system.

The three-year timeline refers to the duration of the additional investment that is now being made. We don’t expect all of the rebuild work to be complete within three years. And system maintenance and improvement is never done. The additional resources will accelerate our ability to address these projects and get them substantially complete or meaningfully underway within three years. We will start with the things that are easiest to separate out of the current system, and work our way through it. The deposit system will be the last part we’ll tackle— after the initial 3-year period. Exactly how we’ll break out or couple together its components will depend somewhat on how the rest of the work in all three programs proceeds.

Additionally, there will be work in the OSO program to pull out deprecated/unused code from the content system as other programs build new free-standing services.

Of course, an end goal is to rebuild all of this in open code repositories, and eventually turn our amber-coloured ‘open source’ to green in our biannual POSI audits.

What does this new investment and approach mean for our community?

Having seen the long list of things we’re planning to do, you may be wondering how this will impact you. Here are some things you should know:

You’ll be able to use our services throughout this project. Part of the reason why we are rebuilding different functions one by one is that we don’t want to interrupt the services we offer to our growing membership and users. The current services will continue to run until the new ones are in place, and we’ll have clear transition plans and documentation in cases where you need to update your workflows.

We won’t just rebuild like-for-like, but we’ll make improvements when we rebuild services. We want to continue to provide the functionality we currently offer to our members, but we also realise there are things that could be better. The clearest example of this is member self-service, which will be one of the main priorities for the CCT program next year. For example, as mentioned above, in 2025, about 15% of member support tickets were contact updates: changes members should be able to make themselves in seconds, but which our membership team handles by hand; that is the kind of thing that will improve life for both members and staff.

We are planning to deprecate some older/less-used services along the way, but we’ll give you plenty of notice. Crossref is probably running more services than you realise! We’re therefore evaluating all our services as part of the redesign, and keeping only the ones that are actively used and really add value for the community. If we decide to retire a service, we will contact all users so they have enough time to transition to an alternative service. Everything we’ve deprecated so far is also itemised on our website.

Community input will be a big part of the process. To ensure the services we offer meet your needs, we will need to keep talking with you. Our community managers and UX researchers will be reaching out to users of different services to understand use cases and ensure these continue to be met within the new system.

This blog is the first tagged ‘ system-redesign’ so follow this category for ongoing updates. If you have feedback or questions, please head to the dedicated community forum space for system redesign and ask us in the open.

Two halves of the same decision

Later this week we’ll also announce the latest round of fee changes resulting from our Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) work. What we charge, and what we do with what we collect, are two halves of the same decision; fees are to come down at the same time as we commit the largest single investment in our infrastructure we have ever made. Both follow from the same principle: we set fees to cover the cost of running the infrastructure, and when we hold more than we need, it goes back to the community and into the longevity of the scholarly record.

Our recent position paper on PIDs in research infrastructure policy argues that the value of an identifier lies in the metadata and services around it, and in whether those can be maintained over the long term. This approach to futureproofing open scholarly infrastructure is an example of that maintenance in action.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Sara Bowman, Carlos del Ojo Elias, Bharath Govindarajan, Stewart Houten, Martyn Rittman, Lena Stoll and Patrick Vale for their work on the system investment proposal and contributions to this blog post.

From EveryLibrary Institute: The EveryLibrary Institute 501c(3) announces the 2027 Library Advocacy and Funding Conference (LAFCON), positioning the three-day virtual summit as the sector’s primary intelligence partner for the upcoming year. This will be the 4th LAFCON conference that EveryLibrary institute has held. Running January 13–15, 2027, the institute serves as a critical tracking hub and training ground, analyzing how overlapping shifts in […]

The post EveryLibrary Institute Launches Library Advocacy and Funding Conference 2027 appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Learn about our new software release on GitHub that is transforming text quality across the Chronicling America Historic Newspapers collection, and how researchers and data enthusiasts can now pull bulk downloads for all 23+ million pages from our brand-new portal. Read all about it!

Here’s the Full Text of the Announcement From the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Franklin — Governor Maura Healey today signed a new law protecting students’ freedom to read and keeping book bans out of Massachusetts schools and public libraries. Signed at the Franklin Public Library, the oldest public library in the United States, the law establishes a fair, transparent process for reviewing […]

The post Statement: Governor Maura Healey Signs Freedom to Read Law Keeping Book Bans Out of Massachusetts Schools and Libraries appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

On 1 July, Jisc’s Publications Router was switched off after nearly a decade of quietly piping metadata and manuscripts into institutional repositories. If you manage a repository, you have probably spent the past few weeks watching that particular feed go quiet. In May we set out how CORE would support deposit workflows once Router retired, … Continue reading Publications Router has retired: where CORE FreshFinds stands

Today Alice Meadows interviews Jennifer Fleet (Aries Systems) and Christian Gruback (ChronosHub) about changing author needs and how their recently announced partnership is an effort to address them.

The post What Authors Expect Now, and Why Publishing Hasn’t Kept Up: An Interview with Jennifer Fleet of Aries Systems and Christian Grubak of ChronosHub appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

Last Updated on August 13, 2026, 3:44 pm ET The ARL Daily Intelligence is the trusted source of news and analysis for library leaders and advocates. Released Monday through Thursday, the ARL Daily...

The post ARL Daily Intelligence (August 10–13) appeared first on Association of Research Libraries.

Why brainstorming search terms is often the least interesting thing an LLM can do for literature discovery.

From the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): The Mesa Gateway Library has been named IFLA/James Bennett’s Public Library of the Year at the 90th World Library and Information Congress in Busan, South Korea. Mesa Gateway Library is not just another new library building. It stands out as a refreshing forward-thinking take on […]

The post Mesa Gateway Library Named IFLA/James Bennett Public Library of the Year 2026 appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

From AAP: Today, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) released the StatShot Annual report covering the calendar year 2025, estimating that the U.S. publishing industry generated $33.4 billion in aggregate publishing revenue for books and course materials across print and digital formats. U.S. Publishing revenue is up 2.5% as compared to $32.5 billion in revenue […]

The post New Data From the Association of American Publishers (AAP): Publishing Revenues Totaled $33.4 Billion for Calendar Year 2025 appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

From the Arkansas Advocate: Arkansas library directors said they have several unanswered questions about how a 2023 state law restricting access to library materials will be enforced after a federal appeals court ruled that it can go into effect. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction on two sections of Act 372 on July 30 but the formal […]

The post Report: Arkansas Librarians Grapple With Enforcing Book Restriction Law After Court Ruling appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

An interview with Natalie Ridgway about new guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics.

The post New Guidance from COPE: An Interview with Natalie Ridgway appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

In December 2026, we plan to publish new Crossref Member Practices which will set out the standards we expect all Crossref members to meet. From August to October 2026 we are consulting with our members on a draft of these Member Practices. This blog provides the background to this, and explains how you can share your views.

In response to community concerns, in July 2025 our Board decided to update our Member Terms to require members to follow a broader set of Member Practices. As these are now drafted by a dedicated working group, we invite feedback on these draft Member Practices from all of our community by 9th of October 2026. Read on to learn more about the aims and development process of the Member Practices, and the different ways to offer your feedback.

Background on the development of Crossref Member Practices

Crossref membership is open to organisations that produce professional and scholarly materials and content. All members have agreed to our member terms, which outline both the benefits of membership and the responsibilities that come with it. We deliberately keep barriers to membership low, and we don’t assess the quality of our members’ outputs or the integrity of the research process as this isn’t part of our mission.

Instead, our role is to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record in a specific way. Our members can create and share Crossref DOIs – unique and persistent identifiers and metadata records for the objects they produce. These metadata records are openly shared through our free APIs, allowing the global scholarly community to discover, connect, and evaluate research.

Each DOI and metadata record confirms that an item has been published, provides a persistent link to the content, and identifies the organisation responsible for both the publication and the metadata. Members are encouraged to include rich information about their records—such as reference links, ORCID iDs for authors, ROR IDs for affiliations, funding information, licensing details, and other metadata—that provides evidence of their publishing practices and helps place their outputs within the scholarly record.

This information allows others to assess a publisher, its processes, and its content. A DOI itself is therefore not a mark of quality or endorsement - it simply confirms that an item has been published and provides metadata that can be considered alongside other trust signals when evaluating the content or the publisher. As we explained in our blog ISR part one: What is our role in preserving the integrity of the scholarly record?:

“Crossref is focused on enriching metadata to provide more and better trust signals while keeping barriers to membership and participation as low as possible to enable an inclusive scholarly record.”

Current member responsibilities

Our member terms have always required our members to keep their DOI records active, accurate, and up-to-date. Members are responsible for:

• Registering accurate and timely DOIs and metadata records for the content they have legal rights to register.
• Not registering records for content that they do not have legal rights to register.
• Not registering duplicate DOI records for content that already has a DOI.
• Not displaying DOI strings that have not been registered with Crossref.
• Ensuring their DOIs continuously resolve to an active, publicly accessible landing page that displays the DOI following our display guidelines.
• Updating metadata and posting a notice if content is withdrawn.
• Promptly correcting any errors or inaccuracies in their metadata record communicated to them by Crossref.
• Participating in Reference Linking by displaying their own and other members’ DOIs on any references provided in their own published content.

Why introduce additional Member Practices?

Over the past several years, conversations with the scholarly community have shown that people are interested not only in the metadata our members provide, but also in members’ broader practices. The community has continued to ask what Crossref can do when a member is not following responsible or ethical practices.

We also recognise that part of our role is helping members understand what it means to participate in the Crossref community. As we explained in ISR part two: How our membership approach helps to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record:

“Inclusivity is very important to us - after all, one of our organisational truths (the guiding principles for everything we do) is “come one, come all”, and this is mirrored in the POSI principles that commit us to broad stakeholder representation. We know that for new organisations, it may take them a while to be able to completely fulfil the membership obligations. We support them with information to help them understand what being a participant in the Crossref community entails. These organisations would have less of a chance of developing better practices if we were to limit membership in Crossref to ‘proven’ candidates.”

With this in mind, we decided to develop a set of Crossref Member Practices to clearly describe the expectations of membership. Our aim is to help our diverse members understand what responsible participation in the Crossref community looks like, regardless of organisation type, region of the world, or discipline. Additionally, where we see an ongoing pattern of non-compliance, particularly if a member does not make reasonable efforts to improve after concerns have been raised, this set of practices offers clear grounds for suspending or ultimately revoking their Crossref membership. We wanted to be clear that deceptive or fraudulent practices are not acceptable for Crossref members.

In July 2025, we updated our Member Terms to require members to follow new Member Practices. Since January 2026, we’ve been working in consultation with the Crossref Member Practices Working Group to develop the practices collaboratively. The working group brings together research integrity experts and scholarly sleuths at publishers, institutions, funders, and community organisations, including COPE and DOAJ. Together, they have shared different perspectives and challenges, helping to shape practical recommendations for the Member Practices. We would like to extend our thanks to this group for all of their suggestions and efforts over the past few months.

While these recommendations are mainly based on the most common issues that have been brought to our notice by the community and largely come from journal publishing, the Member Practices are meant to be adhered to by all Crossref members. These Member Practices will also be reviewed annually with the aim of updating them in line with trends that we notice in the community.

Throughout the group’s discussions, the group has also been clear about what will not change with the introduction of the Member Practices.

What hasn’t changed?

We are still unable to get involved in individual instances of non-compliant activity, we don’t intervene in legal or financial disputes between parties, and we don’t assess the quality of published content or research. But where we see compelling evidence of deceptive or fraudulent activities, where there are systematic problems indicating that a member is no longer acting responsibly, or particularly if a member does not make reasonable efforts to improve after being notified of concerns, we may suspend or ultimately revoke their Crossref membership.

Share your feedback on the draft Member Practices

We invite you to read the draft Member Practices and share your feedback with us. We are keen to understand from our members whether these practices feel realistic and achievable, whether they exclude any part of the community, and if there is anything missing that needs to be included in the Member Practices. As you read the Member Practices, we encourage you to consider:

• Are the outlined Member Practices in line with your expectations of standard best publishing practices? Is there anything that surprised you?
• Do the outlined Crossref Member Practices feel realistic and achievable? Are there any barriers to fulfilling them?
• Are there any behaviours that have been discouraged in the Member Practices but are considered a standard practice in your community?
• Is there anything missing that you would like to see included in the Member Practices?
• Do you need any more information or guidance that would help you in fulfilling any of the Member Practices?

There are several ways in which you can provide your feedback on the draft:

• Come to one of our drop-in webinars where you can ask any questions that you may have about the new Member Practices. Register for the webinars via the below:
  • 25th August at 1300 UTC
  • 15th September at 1700 UTC
  • 24th September at 0700 UTC
• Download the PDF of the Member Practices, add your comments in the document, and email this document to feedback@crossref.org with the subject line “Feedback on Crossref Member Practices”.
• Email your feedback directly in an email to feedback@crossref.org with the subject line “Feedback on Crossref Member Practices”.
• Share your thoughts on the community forum.
• Discuss your feedback with us at one of the upcoming community events – you can find out where Crossref colleagues will be on hand at our events page (at the ‘Crossref attending’ section).

We also plan to organise online meetings with our members representing different areas and different publishing models and output types, so look out for an invitation to those.

The final date for sharing your feedback is 9th October.

Your feedback will be used to finalise the draft of the Member Practices and we will discuss it in our Annual Meeting on 22nd of October. The finalised set of Member Practices will then be shared with the Crossref board for a final review and approval.

A guide to scheduling systems that manufacture evidence

Massachusetts  As Gov. Healey Weighs Library Bill, Readers Say: Let Librarians Decide Source: Boston.com Gov. Maura Healey has until next week to decide whether to sign a bill giving librarians more authority over what stays on their shelves, a measure that Boston.com readers overwhelmingly support. The bill, S.2696, would put much of that authority in the […]

The post Roundup: MN: “Hennepin County Libraries to Limit Hours and Staffing” TX: “Dallas Libraries See Layoffs Ahead Of Budget Season With ‘No Sacred Cows'” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

How ILER turns missing records, proximity calculations, and self-reported exposure into federal evidence.

The article linked below was recently published by The Journal of Academic Librarianship. Title Integrating Generative Ai Into Librarian-Led Data Literacy Instruction For Science And Engineering Students Authors Alexander J. Carroll Vanderbilt University Joshua Borycz Vanderbilt University Nicole K. Stephens Vanderbilt University Nadia Merritt Vanderbilt University Amanda R. Lowery Vanderbilt University Source The Journal of […]

The post Journal Article: Integrating Generative AI Into Librarian-Led Data Literacy Instruction For Science and Engineering Students appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Whether peer review needs revolution or evolution may be the wrong question. The more pressing one is whether the academic community is prepared to let scientific ideas be published, contested, and refined in public, rather than behind closed doors.

The post Guest Post — Do we need (r)evolution in peer review? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

This week I am celebrating two big work anniversaries: 19 years of science blogging with the first blog post on August 3, 2007. And five years of Front Matter, the organization that I started on August 2, 2021.

From Hartford Business: One of the world’s largest collections of recorded music has found a permanent home in Connecticut. The Archive of Contemporary Music, a nonprofit repository of more than 3 million sound recordings that was forced out of New York City by soaring rents, has purchased a commercial building in Ridgefield where it plans […]

The post Music Archive With 3 Million Recordings Picks Connecticut as Permanent Home appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Publishing infrastructure shapes careers. It shapes what questions get asked, what research gets validated, and whose voices enter the global scholarly conversation. As the scholarly publishing market continues to consolidate, how does that impact different communities in different ways?

The post Guest Post — Buying the Middle: Reading the Wiley Emerald Deal from the Global South appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

The Crossref community in India is as diverse as the region that it represents, comprising 1605 members, 11 sponsoring organisations, and 5 ambassadors, who between them cover the length and breadth of this country. Between November 2025 and March 2026, we organised three webinars focused on supporting this community with best metadata and publishing practices. We collaborated with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to embed understanding of metadata’s role in the greater context of publishing integrity.

Together, the webinars explored current best publishing practices, the role played by rich metadata and Crossref’s infrastructure in enabling these, and how members can make the most of their Crossref membership. As the topics we covered are relevant to all Crossref members – this blog presents a summary of the sessions and key themes that arose from the discussions. You can also access the slides and recordings of all these sessions.

Publishing best practices and metadata: Crossref essentials + DOAJ

The series began on 13th November 2025, with a refresher on our vision, mission, the basics of our infrastructure, an overview from DOAJ about their indexing criteria, and ethics in open access publishing.

Dr. Sushil Kumar, Crossref ambassador in India, reminded the audience about Crossref’s mission, our Research Nexus vision, and how our members contribute to this shared infrastructure when they assign DOIs and submit rich metadata with their records. He also carefully explained that Crossref is not only about DOIs and DOIs themselves do not say anything about the quality of a publication. Rather, a DOI is a persistent identifier for an item, which signals that the item exists. He also pointed to the steps to keep in mind when getting started with content registration, which include choosing a content registration method and deciding how to construct your DOI suffixes.

As Crossref members, in addition to registering unique DOIs for objects you publish or share, you also provide rich metadata for these records. Maryna Kovalyova, Member Experience Manager at Crossref, highlighted why this metadata matters and the key elements that make your records rich. She showcased the Crossref Participation Reports, which is a free tool that allows you to visualize what percentage of your metadata records contain the 11 key metadata elements. Importantly, the “Download Gap Report” feature of the tool enables the download of a list of DOIs that are missing a certain metadata element.

We then heard from Dr. Vrushali Dandawate, DOAJ Senior Ambassador Asia, who provided an overview of DOAJ which is a fellow open scholarly infrastructure that indexes open access journals. Vrushali spoke about the basic criteria for journals to be included in DOAJ, such as the requirements for journals to be fully open access, and the information that should be available about the applicant journals. As part of her presentation, Vrushali drew attention to the best publishing practices in open-access publishing, one of which is providing metadata such as author information, ORCID iDs, abstracts, and more, for promoting discoverability.

You can access the recording and all the slides from this webinar here.

Upholding integrity: Crossref member obligations and COPE guidance

The journey continued in 2026 with the second webinar of the series on January 21st. Amanda Bartell, Director of Membership at Crossref, kicked it off with a presentation on the role of Crossref in preserving the integrity of the scholarly record (ISR). As she had laid out in her earlier blog about ISR, “Crossref is focused on enriching metadata to provide more and better trust signals while keeping barriers to membership and participation as low as possible to enable an inclusive scholarly record”. There are a few different ways in which members can demonstrate their commitment towards preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. All Crossref members have to comply with member obligations such as:

• depositing accurate metadata,
• creating DOI links in a timely fashion,
• registering only the content that a member has the legal right to,
• making sure that there is a unique and active landing page for each DOI,
• following display guidelines, and
• maintaining and updating their metadata records, and linking their references.

Following these obligations not only keeps our members “in good standing”, but also allows them to demonstrate their support for preserving the integrity of the scholarly record by providing “trust signals” about the work that they publish. Amanda called out some key metadata elements that are particularly important as trust signals. These include references, links to data, contributors and their roles, including ORCID iDs, affiliations and affiliation identifiers (ROR IDs), and funding information. This metadata is used by the wider scholarly community as signals about the trustworthiness of the item, since they provide important context about the work such as which organisations and people contributed to it and what was their contribution, who funded the work, whether the work was checked for originality, whether it was updated after publication, and more.

Practices such as displaying DOI strings that are not registered, DOIs resolving to a 404 page, and metadata containing inaccuracies, can lead to loss of trust in the member’s commitment. This can be avoided by ensuring that all DOIs are always registered by the member, by updating resolution URLs when content moves, and by registering accurate metadata.

Good metadata matters.

The best way to demonstrate your commitment towards upholding the scholarly record is by registering working DOIs, depositing rich and accurate metadata about your content, and making updates to existing metadata when required.

Another way to demonstrate trust is by openly managing any updates that happen to your content post its publication. If an item published by you has been withdrawn or retracted, the best practice is to update its metadata record by adding the word “withdrawn” or “retracted” (as the case may be) to the article’s title, and adding the retraction or withdrawal metadata in the Crossmark section of our schema.

COPE’s retraction guidelines also include the importance of metadata in accurately capturing retractions in the scholarly record, added Dr. Marie Souliere, COPE council member and our guest speaker at this webinar. She shared the latest COPE guidance around retractions and expressions of concern. Some of the advice covered by these guidelines include when to consider retracting articles and when to issue expressions of concern, what should be included in these notices, and handling communication with authors. Marie emphasized that retractions are not a mechanism for punishing the publication’s authors but rather are essential for correcting literature and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. COPE guidance also recommends capturing bidirectional links between the article and the associated expression of concern and also linking the retraction notice to the retracted article.

The recording of the second webinar and all the slides from both the speakers are available here.

Preserving the scholarly record: how to deposit post publication updates with Crossref

The culminating webinar in this learning series was held in March 2026 and was a refresher on the different ways in which Crossref members can deposit any post-publication updates to their content. We first discussed how retractions and corrections are significant changes to a content’s status and it’s important to capture them accurately in the scholarly record, so that readers are always citing and reading the most up to date information. Although whether content needs to be updated and what type of update is warranted are usually editorial decisions, recording this update in the scholarly record is the publisher’s responsibility and it goes a long way in maintaining the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Shayn Smulyan, Technical Support Specialist at Crossref, then provided a comprehensive overview of metadata related to post publication updates. The basics to manage post-publication updates openly are:

• if content has been retracted, withdrawn or corrected, do not just remove the page from your website,
• set the content’s DOI to resolve to a notification page that explains the update, and
• update the metadata record to indicate the update.

Numerous types of post-publication updates are supported by our schema and the most common ones are correction, erratum, retraction, withdrawal, corrigendum, expression of concern, and withdrawal. There are multiple options for sending these through: if you are comfortable with writing XML files, you can submit updates via XML deposit.

Although updates are registered in the Crossmark part of the schema, you do not need to be a Crossmark user to deposit your updates. We have several examples of how to register updates in our documentation that you can refer to. These include examples on how to link retraction or correction notices with the original item.

The web deposit form, which is one of our helper tools for content registration, can also be used for depositing updates. However, via this method you will need to re-enter and submit all the metadata for your record, not just the metadata related to the update.

Shayn also touched on the Crossmark service. We are aware that this service has been technically challenging for our members to implement but as mentioned previously, you do not need to be a Crossmark user to deposit metadata on post publication updates. The main benefit of implementing Crossmark is that it helps to surface information about post-publication updates for readers in a consistent manner, even if they are accessing PDFs of publications away from the publisher’s website. Those interested in implementing the service need to publish a Crossmark policy page and register a DOI for it.

Detailed information on doing this is available here.

You can now also use our newest helper tool, the Metadata Manager to register post-publication updates for your journal content. To do this, choose the “post-publication update” option in the Metadata Manager and then fill it out with metadata of the update notice and the DOI of the journal content that is being updated. This might be a suitable option for those of you who are using OJS for sending your metadata to Crossref.

The recording and slides from this webinar can be accessed here.

Questions from the community

We had a very engaged audience for these webinars who had a lot of questions for our speakers. We thought it might be helpful to share the answers to some of them here:

How do I register my content?

You need to join Crossref as a member to register your objects with us (those could be journal articles, book chapters, dissertations, conference proceedings, datasets, grants, and more). Once you join – you will receive a DOI prefix. You can combine this DOI prefix with a suffix of your choice to create a DOI. Content registration enables you to register the DOI and deposit or update the metadata associated with the DOI record. The metadata about your content is stored with us as XML. If you are comfortable with writing XML, you can send us your XML files directly. But if you are not comfortable with that, you can use any one of our three helper tools. You can take a look at our quick guide for choosing your content registration method to learn more.

How to get a DOI for a journal published by a not-for-profit society?

The process for membership remains the same for everyone: simply apply here to join Crossref.

What is the use of XML files?

All of the metadata that is deposited with Crossref is submitted as XML. You can either submit the XML files yourself directly or you can use one of the helper tools to enter your metadata, which is then converted into XML and deposited with Crossref for you.

Has Crossref come across spam DOIs that mimic Crossref DOIs?

Take a look at this ticket of the month that my colleague from the member support team, Collin Knopp-Schwyn put together, on how to identify strings that look like DOIs but are just a hyperlink.

In many disciplines, authors frequently cite scientifically legitimate sources that do not have DOIs, such as institutional reports, public policy documents, and technical standards. Although these are valid and essential from a scholarly perspective, their citations are not incorporated into Crossref's citation linking. Is Crossref planning any future developments to better recognise these legitimate non-DOI references?

It is correct that not all references may have a DOI but it is still important to include such references in your metadata record. Our system regularly checks to see if a DOI has been registered for the cited item and if so, matches the reference to the DOI. Registering these references also means downstream systems that use Crossref metadata can ingest these references and use them for any citation linking they may be performing.

What is Crossmark and how is it connected or integrated with Crossref services?

Crossmark provides a way for readers to consistently discover the status of a research output, along with additional metadata related to the editorial process. You do not need to implement the full Crossmark service to deliver post publication update metadata. If you are interested in using the service, more information on how to participate is available in our documentation.

What are the best practices to report retractions in DOI metadata?

Take a look at this ticket of the month that my colleague from the technical support team, Kathleen Luschek, wrote, detailing why retractions are important, how to register them, and how to retrieve them.

Can you indicate an update to an article via Crossmark for a small correction that might not warrant a Correction?

When a change is made to a document without issuing a separate update or correction, it is called an in-situ update. In-situ updates are not recommended because they can obscure the scholarly record. However, sometimes members might need to support such updates and we have documentation available on how to do this.

Is there a mechanism that allows integrity-related events to be linked when they occur within the same scholarly context (for example at the level of a publication or a journal)?

When a registered item is updated, the update is captured in the item’s metadata. If there are a series of updates, they are also captured in the item’s metadata. All of this metadata is openly available via Crossref’s APIs. Anyone in the community can then use this metadata to analyse it at a scale that they are interested in, for example at a journal or publication level.

Does Crossref make any effort to get organizations into ROR?

Anybody can submit a request for getting an organisation added to ROR via this form. The ROR team then reviews the request based on their scope and criteria for inclusion.

We hope that those of you who were able to join one or more of the webinars found the information valuable and useful in your journey as a Crossref member. If you have any feedback, questions, or simply suggestions for other relevant topics that you would like to hear more about, I encourage you to post your thoughts on our community forum.

References

1. Kovalyova, M., Kumar, S., Dandawate, V., & Amdekar, M. (2025). Publishing best practices and metadata: Crossref essentials + DOAJ. Crossref. https://doi.org/10.13003/187292ikitet
2. Bartell, A., Hendricks, G., & Pentz, E. (2022). ISR part one: What is our role in preserving the integrity of the scholarly record? Crossref. https://doi.org/10.64000/edg3w-7t592
3. COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. August 2025.https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
4. COPE Council. COPE Guidelines — Expressions of concern — English.https://doi.org/10.24318/mw2J3661
5. Amdekar, M., Bartell, A., & Soulière, M. (2026). Upholding integrity- Crossref member obligations and COPE guidance 21 Jan 2026. Crossref. https://doi.org/10.13003/009588qnbtki
6. Rittman, M., & Amdekar, M. (2024). Crossmark community consultation: What did we learn? Crossref. https://doi.org/10.64000/2jdxh-7dh12
7. Amdekar, M., & Smulyan, S. (2026). Preserving the scholarly record: how to deposit post-publication updates with Crossref. Crossref. https://doi.org/10.13003/870495pojpbq

Welcome to Fall 2026, Matadors! Whether you’re a returning student or just getting started at CSUN, the University Library is here for you with a…

Each year, we look forward to bringing innovative projects and research to SXSW EDU 2026, where we connect, learn, and collaborate with an active and engaged community. This year, we’re proposing three sessions—a panel, a presentation, and an interactive workshop—that explore timely topics across higher education, from nontraditional colleges and learner-centered educational pathways to AI literacy.

The post PanelPicker Is Open for SXSW EDU 2027 appeared first on Ithaka S+R.

This week the Rogue Scholar author profiles that were launched in June were improved in several important ways. Author profiles are now generated fully automated from the pubic ORCID profile and therefore automatically available for all authors with an ORCID, and affiliation profile pages are now also available.

The ORCID

What does it mean to preserve culture in an age of disappearing websites, platform-controlled media, and fragile digital memories? In the final episode of our special six-part series on Vanishing […]

What happens then to “author voice,” which has always been an important consideration to authors and reviewers alike, if AI is helping researchers with their writing?

The post The Published Voice: Whose Voice Are We Really Reading? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

A demo version of our new ROR search application is now open for public testing, and we need your feedback to help us get it over the finish line.

We’re joining with EFF and other civil society groups asking the Governor of New York to veto the Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act. Here’s why. News publishers have a real problem: […]

Last Updated on August 4, 2026, 12:25 pm ET ARL Monitor: Public Edition (Summer 2026) In the Government Affairs section of this issue, the US research sector reacts to proposed changes to...

The post Summer 2026 appeared first on Association of Research Libraries.

From PALCI: The Partnership for Academic Library Collaboration and Innovation (PALCI) has published the PALCI Guide to Interoperability and System Selection, a resource to help academic and research libraries evaluate whether new systems will support open standards and effective collaboration before contracts are signed. The guide walks readers through what interoperability means in practice, why […]

The post Partnership for Academic Library Collaboration and Innovation (PALCI) Releases Guide to Interoperability and Library System Selection appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

From the US GPO via FDLP: The U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) has launched a new Annual Reports collection on GovInfo, the one-stop site for authentic, published information for all three branches of the Federal Government. This release will make it easier to find and search for Annual Reports published by Federal agencies. The new collection is […]

The post US Government Publishing Office (GPO) Launches New Annual Reports Collection on GovInfo appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

The article linked below was recently published by the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (JLSC). Title Values and Viability, Principles and Practice: A Survey of Journal Editors’ Decision-Making Factors Author Michelle E. Wilson University of Maryland Source Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (JLSC) Volume 14, Issue 1 (2026) DOI: 10.31274/jlsc.24524 Abstract Introduction: This […]

The post Journal Article: “Values and Viability, Principles and Practice: A Survey of Journal Editors’ Decision-Making Factors” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

How has the social media landscape in scholarly communications changed, according to data from the recent Pulse Check, past community surveys, and checked real, live marketers?

The post From Hub to Hustle: The Scattered Social Landscape in Scholarly Comms appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

Last Updated on August 6, 2026, 4:25 pm ET The ARL Daily Intelligence is the trusted source of news and analysis for library leaders and advocates. Released Monday through Thursday, the ARL Daily...

The post ARL Daily Intelligence (August 3–6) appeared first on Association of Research Libraries.

Appraisal, access, and the ceiling on the computational archive

Today, we asked the community: What key message(s) do you want policymakers to take from the responses submitted to the OMB?

The post Ask the Community: What’s Next for the OMB Rule Change? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

This is the July 2026 issue of the monthly newsletter from the Rogue Scholar science blog archive (the June newsletter was skipped for personal reasons). The newsletter reports on new blogs that have joined the platform, important technical updates in Rogue Scholar infrastructure, community updates, and other news relevant

From Statehouse News Service via NBC Boston: The Massachusetts Legislature on Friday sent to Gov. Maura Healey’s desk legislation that establishes guidelines for how schools and public libraries make decisions about the availability and appropriateness of books. “Together we are setting forth a bill to protect free expression and intellectual curiosity and every person’s right […]

The post Massachusetts Lawmakers Send Governor Healey Bill “That Establishes Guidelines For How Schools and Public Libraries Make Decisions About the Availability and Appropriateness of Books” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Provenance, Original Order, and Organizational Memory in the Machine Age

New OMB Guidance threatens the important Title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs. Comment period ends today, please add your voice!

The post Guest Post — Another Challenge to International Education Programs appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

From 5newsonline.com: A judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that a 2023 Arkansas law aiming to restrict access to “obscene” books can be enforced. Act 372, as summarized by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, aims to “protect children from obscenity and increase accountability for public-library curation decisions.” Learn More, Read the Complete […]

The post Arkansas: Federal Judge Rules That Library Book ‘Obscenity’ Law Can Be Enforced, Reversing Previous Decision appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Preserving humanity’s memory isn’t cheap. Servers need power, storage needs upgrading, and physical collections need scanning teams working around the clock. Leading a philanthropy department and building a high-performing team […]

Here’s the Full Text of Today’s Announcement From arXiv: arXiv today announced the appointment of Dr. Penelope Lewis as its inaugural Chief Executive Officer and the eight members of its Board of Directors, marking two significant milestones in the organization’s transition to an independent nonprofit and strengthening its capacity to serve the global research community […]

The post arXiv Appoints Inaugural CEO and Establishes Board of Directors appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Today's guest post warns the community that, in the AI era, we cannot keep building the pieces that lay the foundation and letting someone else own what gets built on top of it.

The post Guest Post — The Third Time is NOT the Charm: Who Will Own How AI Participates in Scholarship? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

What “full library discovery” taught me about LLM classification, overengineered retrieval and AI agents.

The Local History and Genealogy Web Archive preserves websites that help researchers trace family histories and better understand the communities where their ancestors lived. In this interview, Ahmed Johnson discusses the importance of preserving the websites of local history and genealogical societies, the challenges of building a broadly representative collection, and the role of web archiving in connecting future researchers with the past.

Languages can vanish just as easily as books, websites, or archives—and when they do, entire ways of understanding the world can disappear with them. In the fifth episode of our […]

From Gallup: Americans’ familiarity with artificial intelligence has grown over the past two years. Today, 70% say they are somewhat or extremely knowledgeable about AI, up from 64% in 2024. But instead of becoming more comfortable with the technology, Americans’ previously improving attitudes toward AI have lost momentum, according to the latest Bentley University-Gallup Business in […]

The post Gallup: “Americans Cool Toward AI: After Two Years of Improving Attitudes Toward AI, Americans Turn Skeptical” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

From the Missouri Independent: Missouri Republican officials threatened Tuesday to cut state funding for Columbia’s public library after staff held a reading of LGBTQ+ children’s books last week. Secretary of State Denny Hoskins and state Sen. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican running for Congress in Missouri’s 5th congressional district, held a joint press conference Tuesday […]

The post Report: Missouri Republicans Threaten Library Funding Over ‘Rainbow Story Time’ appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Why the most important innovations in records management became standards instead of inventions

Research integrity demands stronger safeguards in order to protect the scholarly record. But for editors, when new integrity measures are introduced, they do not replace existing tasks; they are added alongside them, compounding workloads and responsibilities.

The post The Hidden Cost of Trust appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

From an Upstream (Force11) Blog Post: The fragmentation of social media and the rise of Generative Artificial intelligence (AI) have renewed the importance of scholarly blogs. Similar to preprints, blogs enable researchers to communicate ideas, preliminary findings, and emerging debates without waiting for lengthy peer-review processes. At the same time, blogs provide more space than […]

The post Report: “Ten Simple Rules For Scholarly Blogging” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

The full-text article linked below was recently published by Scientometrics. Title Tracking the Retracted Paper Mill Articles: A Bibliometric Study Authors Michelle W. T. Cheng The Education University of Hong Kong Xinhua Yang The Education University of Hong Kong Ryan M. Allen Soka University of America Source Scientometrics (2026) DOI: 10.1007/s11192-026-05751-6 Abstract Paper mills have […]

The post Journal Article: “Tracking the Retracted Paper Mill Articles: A Bibliometric Study” appeared first on Library Journal infoDOCKET.

Models for funding open access journal article publishing can be sorted into three categories, organized by who pays and what they pay for: transactional, collective action, and subvention.

The post Categorizing Open Access Business Models appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

Sixteen-year-old Simone O. Elias has a lot to say about her generation and the way it is perceived by society. Rather than wait for a traditional publisher, the Berkeley, California, […]

China’s new Five-Year Plan for archives reads like a blueprint for digital government. The more consequential question is who gets to write the standards underneath it.

This post is part of a special collaboration between The Scholarly Kitchen's Mental Health Mondays and EON's I AM EDITOR. United by a shared commitment to the people who have been called to scholarly publishing, this partnership seeks to amplify conversations about mental health, reduce stigma, and nurture a more supportive, resilient, and connected professional community.

The post Mental Health Awareness Mondays: Community Through Communication — An “I AM EDITOR” Spotlight appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.