ABSTRACT Using data obtained from the 2025 round of the Harbingers project on early career researchers (ECRs), artificial intelligence (AI) and scholarly communications, we provide an overarching (aerial) analysis of the AI‐impacted scholarly communications system. It covers nearly 20 communication aspects, including metrics, peer review, which saw 62 ECRs interviewed from 6 countries and from a range of subjects. To produce such a wide panorama in a single paper the focus is on the interview questions that provided summarisation, codification and quantification of the data. The data was analysed by country, age, gender and subject, where relevant and significant. Quotes are also used to support the quantitative data. There is widespread agreement that citations remain the main reputational currency, that traditional publishing outlets are here to stay, that peer review badly needs fixing and, most importantly, that AI is impacting on a very wide front across the scholarly enterprise. Overhanging it all is the worry that the quality of research output is being undermined, through bad actors and AI ghostwriters. Findings are based on a relatively small, convenience sample, so they should not be regarded as definitive, rather as pointers. Furthermore, an extensive literature review shows that this is a rare study of ECRs.

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 paper examines critical challenges in preservation, such as infrastructure limitations, technological barriers and resource constraints, and explores potential solutions through collaborative initiatives, standardised reporting and targeted investments. Drawing on existing literature and previous efforts to preserve academic content, including journal preservation and digital content archiving, the paper outlines actionable steps to safeguard the future of scholarly books. A working group was formed to create a comprehensive guide for preservation, providing a framework that will support publishers, libraries and researchers in securing the ongoing availability of digital monographs.

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.

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.

Key Points In academic publishing, the peer review process can be marred by inefficiencies, biases, lack of transparency, and inaccuracies/inadequacies. The use of artificial intelligence tools in manuscript review adds a new dimension of uncertainty and accountability. Rejecting a manuscript after the first round of peer review without the authors' response has substantial consequences, and it undermines the fundamental legal rights of responding. The option of an appeal is not a feasible solution because it is often tied with excessive delays and barriers for the authors, and it is time‐consuming for the editors.

ABSTRACT A survey conducted in 2022 amongst members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan ( n = 633) about preprints and open access journals included qualitative data from free‐response answers ( n = 161). Analysis of the free‐form responses suggests that researchers believe that peer review of papers is the foundation for ensuring the credibility of research content. The trust‐building mechanism achieved through peer review shapes the research community. For this reason, researchers are extremely cautious about preprints that have not undergone peer review within their own fields. This foundation has fostered a sense of responsibility within the community, and this sense of responsibility, which is being fulfilled by ensuring the quality of research, is a mixture of both a sense of responsibility towards the community itself and a sense of responsibility towards the outside world, namely the relationship between researchers and society. Researchers also appear to view the rise in Article Processing Charges (APCs) as a problem for the entire community, rather than simply an issue for individual researchers. In the field of molecular biology, where collaborative research between universities and companies is common, differences in normative awareness based on position are reflected in the various attitudes towards preprints and open access.

ABSTRACT This paper aims to paint portraits of international authors contributing to journals in China and to analyse the relationship between these authors and journals. An international authorship is crucial to the academic quality and global influence of journals. This study integrates bibliometric analysis with academic portrait methods. It employs the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) growth‐share matrix to identify and label critical dimensions of international authors' research. The findings indicate that scholars from the United States, India, Japan, Germany, Australia and other countries are the main international contributors to journals in China. These authors present unique characteristics in terms of quantity, collaboration, influence, loyalty and quality. The characteristics of scholars from these countries/regions in terms of dimensions such as research areas, open access, funding sources and Sustainable Development Goals are also analysed.