The first Pulse Check report on AI in Scholarly Publishing is now available! See how publishers and scholarly communications professionals are using AI, where they see opportunities and concerns, and how prepared organizations feel for what’s ahead. Read the key takeaways on The Scholarly Kitchen and dive deeper with the full report on the SSP website.
Key Findings
- AI Adoption Is Widespread but Uneven
AI is no longer experimental in scholarly publishing. - Organizations Are Proceeding with Cautious Optimism
The dominant organizational posture toward AI is measured exploration. - Preparedness Lags Behind Adoption
Despite growing use, most organizations feel only partially prepared to navigate AI’s impact. - Ethical, Legal, and Capacity Concerns Dominate Barriers
The most frequently cited barriers to AI adoption are ethical or legal concerns, data privacy and security, and lack of expertise or staff capacity. - Perceived Opportunities Focus on Scale, Quality, and Access
Respondents most often point to workflow efficiency and time savings, followed by peer review enhancement, and research integrity, and quality control. - Concerns Are Deeper and More Existential Than Opportunities
Respondents express a strong fear that AI could accelerate a “race to the bottom” in scholarly quality.
Pulse Check polls consist of 5–6 focused questions, along with optional demographic information to enable richer segmentation and trend analysis.
By regularly “taking the temperature” of our community, Pulse Check helps track emerging challenges, opportunities, policy impacts, and shifting priorities affecting scholarly publishing organizations. Findings will support data-informed decision-making and provide a clearer picture of how our community is evolving.
If you have a suggestion for future Pulse Check Polls, send your ideas to info@sspnet.org.
