When I think about best practice in academic publishing, I tend to focus on the biggest shifts taking place in our industry. Three stand out: open access becoming the standard business model, the geographical shift in where research is produced (particularly the pivot towards Asia), and the rise of AI use throughout the content creation and publishing process.
Open access models and the role of the publisher
Open access has rightly become the standard business model in academic and scholarly publishing. Making research more accessible benefits researchers, clinicians, policymakers and society more broadly. However, it is a common misconception that open access somehow reduces the importance of the publisher. In reality, it is the opposite.
Where the route to publishing is more open, the publisher’s role as a gatekeeper of quality becomes even more important. We have all seen how research integrity challenges (like paper mills and compromised peer review) can undermine confidence in scholarly publishing. If those trends continue unchecked, there is a risk that the research ecosystem becomes flooded with work that adds little value. That is why BMJ Group has a clinician-led, dedicated research integrity team who work across the complete BMJ Journals portfolio.
Globalisation of research
At the same time, the geography of research is changing, with content coming from a much wider range of countries and institutions. The US remains a major research power, but China has become a significant producer of scientific knowledge, and we are witnessing growth across Asia more broadly. For publishers, this changes what best practice looks like. Editorial boards, reviewer networks and decision-making processes need to reflect where research is being produced today, not just where it was traditionally concentrated. If submissions are increasingly coming from China, India, and other fast-growing research markets, then those communities also need fair representation in peer review, editorial leadership and scholarly debate. This is partly about fairness, but it’s also about quality. If we want to be able to make the best decisions, then we need the right expertise around the table.
The same principle applies beyond geography. Patients increasingly have an important role to play in shaping the conduct and communication of medical research. Patients on BMJ Group’s editorial boards are not tokens. They have a genuine say in strategic direction, topic selection and policy decisions.
Patients judge research through the lens of their lived experience, asking whether it is clear, relevant and useful in real life. In this sense, best practice is not only about publishing more global research, but it’s also about building more representative scholarly communities around it.
The rise of AI
Lastly, we are all very aware that AI is transforming how knowledge is created and consumed. In this new environment, the role of publishers deserves renewed attention. Some people see AI primarily as a threat; I take a more balanced view.
When publishers decide to publish an article, they are making a statement. They are saying that they have assessed the work, applied appropriate scrutiny and believe there are good reasons for it to enter the scholarly record. This is why I believe that qualities such as editorial judgement, research integrity and evidence validation are becoming increasingly important in an AI-enabled world.
That said, AI does present challenges that publishers cannot solve alone. Our sector urgently needs to develop clearer research integrity standards around the use of AI tools. We have entered a grey zone where different organisations are taking different approaches to disclosure and transparency.
The upside is that AI will make publishing faster and more efficient. It will support better workflows and help people navigate a far more complex information landscape. But the main responsibility must remain very clearly with publishers.
It is for us to make authentic human judgements. It is also better, in my view, that we establish sensible frameworks now rather than wait for others to impose them on us later. As a wider academic community, we need to work together on practical standards that are transparent, fair and broadly understood.
Looking ahead five years, I honestly do not think the main characteristics of a successful publisher will have changed dramatically. Technology, business models, and the research landscape will all continue to evolve, yet the qualities that define a good publisher will remain remarkably consistent.
An ethical publisher maintains high standards, serves its community, makes fair editorial decisions, builds trust, and, above all, takes responsibility for what it publishes. If we can continue to do those things while adapting to open access, globalisation and AI, then that is what best practice in academic media looks like and how we keep the scientific record in safe hands.
This article was first published in Issue # 1 of Best Practice in Publishing, a new publication from InPublishing. Click here for links to the other ‘best practice’ articles from the publication.
