Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
The first half of 2026 has offered no shortage of reminders that scholarly publishing is changing rapidly – and not always comfortably for those of us in scholarly communications. Reviewing the Cabells blog so far this year, one theme has come through again and again: researchers, librarians, publishers and institutions rrequire improved evidence, habits and tools if they are to navigate a landscape being reshaped by AI, predatory practices and shifting norms about the notion of research impact.
Not surprisingly, AI has been a defining concern. Our posts on fake sources, fake diseases and the possible decline of paper mills all point to the same uncomfortable reality: generative AI has lowered the cost of producing plausible-looking academic content. That does not of course automatically mean all AI use is bad; but it does mean that formatting, fluent language and apparent citations are no longer reliable signals of credibility. Whether the issue is AI-generated references, ‘AI slop’ or fabricated academic concepts being repeated by large language models, the lesson is clear that verification matters more than ever.
Trust, AI and the need for better signals
Another strand has been the continuing threat posed by predatory practices. From predatory conferences to journal hijacking, from fake domains to misleading metrics, the risks facing authors are becoming more sophisticated. The ‘look before you leap’ message remains essential, and as always authors must check journals before submitting, not after something has gone wrong. The same principle underpins coverage of Beall’s List and the long shadow it now casts. Outdated and opaque resources offer little assistance and may even harm legitimate publishers that have changed or corrected course. Now more than ever, trust needs to be earned.
At the same time, the blog has explored how new technology like AI can support better decisions when it is used carefully and within trusted boundaries. Cabells’ CompassAI is a good example of this more constructive approach. By combining AI-assisted matching with Cabells’ curated Journalytics data, the tool helps authors move from guesswork to evidence when choosing where to publish. This links neatly with the broader argument that researchers should ‘research their research’ – applying the same curiosity and scrutiny to journals as they do to their own subject matter.
Out and about
Cabells was able to attend a number of conferences in the first six months of the year (and will be at ALPSP, Frankfurt, GBSN Beyond and Charleston if you want to catch us there), and at UKSG our reflections seemed to capture a sector under pressure. Budget constraints, staff changes, geopolitical uncertainty and concern about sustainability all point to an industry in transition. Yet the response on our part cannot simply be anxiety. The recurring theme we have come to in the blog has been a positive one about collaboration: partnerships, shared infrastructure, transparent data and practical guidance for authors and librarians.
Finally, our posts focusing on specific sectors such as business schools, journal rankings and the SDGs remind us that publishing decisions are never neutral. Rankings and lists shape behavior, but they can also reinforce conformity and overlook socially relevant research. If scholarship is to make a real-world contribution, it is clear the systems that evaluate it must evolve too.
Overall, the year so far gives us a coherent story. Scholarly communication is facing sharper risks, faster technology and higher expectations. However, with better data, stronger scrutiny and more responsible tools, we can still see a path toward trust, integrity and better publishing decisions. Let’s hope we can keep on the straight and narrow for the remainder of 2026 and into 2027.
*That’s it for a few weeks while we take a break at Cabells – see you next month!