Scholarly Publishing
Scholarly publishing is reaching a stage where small, incremental improvements no longer address the challenges publishers face. In 2026, academic publishers are managing a mix of pressures that influence day to day operations, including steadily increasing regulatory requirements. Automation is becoming part of standard workflows. Accessibility expectations are more clearly defined. At the same time, attention on research integrity continues to intensify.
These developments are changing more than production methods. They influence how content is reviewed, governed, and delivered to research communities worldwide. The scholarly publishing trends shaping 2026 point to a shift toward clearer accountability, greater transparency, and processes that can scale without compromising standards.
One of the clearest changes in scholarly publishing today is how artificial intelligence is being used. AI is no longer limited to small experiments or pilot projects. What started with basic tasks like manuscript screening and language editing is now becoming part of everyday editorial, production, metadata, and discovery workflows within academic publishing AI environments.
As AI becomes part of regular publishing work, it is assessed in new ways. Speed and efficiency alone are not sufficient. Publishers are now expected to be clear about how AI is used, how it supports editorial decisions, and how openness is maintained throughout the process.
As automation becomes part of day-to-day publishing, publishers need to be clear about how it is used and managed. Editorial teams also need to know which tasks automation can support and which decisions must remain in human hands, particularly when research quality and trust are involved. This shift reflects a larger industry change. AI is being treated less as a tool and more as part of the publishing infrastructure, bringing greater focus on compliance, integrity, and accountability in the years ahead.
Accessibility is no longer a side concern in scholarly publishing. It has become a central part of how publishing quality is judged. What was once handled through exceptions or last minute adjustments is now expected as standard practice. Regulations and institutional requirements are lining up, and publishers are being asked to meet WCAG publishing compliance so their digital content works for all users, not just most of them.
This expectation changes how accessibility is handled. It cannot be added after publication or addressed only when issues surface. It needs to be considered from the start, carried through content creation and platform delivery, and maintained as material is updated over time. When accessibility is treated this way, it becomes part of normal publishing work rather than a recurring problem to fix.
As automation becomes more embedded in publishing workflows, attention is increasingly focused on research integrity and transparency. Publishers face increasing concern about undisclosed use of automated tools, unclear authorship practices, and the reliability of submitted content. These issues require journals to define clear standards and apply them consistently.
As a result, many publishers update their disclosure and review policies to make tool usage clear and keep it under editorial oversight. Protecting research integrity now goes beyond peer review alone. It extends across submission, evaluation, and publication, helping maintain trust in scholarly communication.
Peer review is evolving as publishers look for ways to manage rising submission volumes and reviewer fatigue. Automation now supports practical parts of the review process, such as matching reviewers, handling initial checks, and helping editors manage submissions more efficiently. Used well, it reduces workload without lowering standards.
Automation can support review workflows, but it cannot take over judgment. Decisions that affect research quality and credibility still depend on editors and reviewers. When automation is used without clear rules, it can introduce bias, make decisions harder to explain, and reduce confidence in the process. As expectations increase, journals are judged more closely on how consistently and transparently peer review is applied by authors, institutions, and funders.
Metadata is no longer something that sits quietly in the background. In scholarly publishing, it directly affects how content is found, accessed, reported on, and used by automated systems. As research is distributed across more platforms and services, metadata quality matters more. When metadata is incomplete or inconsistent, content becomes harder to discover and easier to overlook, limiting both visibility and reach.
Publishers are now expected to work with metadata that follows common standards and can move smoothly across indexing services, repositories, and analytics tools. This shows a broader recognition that metadata quality influences research impact, compliance, and long term value, not only production efficiency.
Open access continues to reshape scholarly publishing, bringing with it greater operational and financial complexity. Funder mandates and institutional policies now require publishers to work with more open access models, while clearly showing how costs, reporting, and compliance are handled.
As these models settle into regular use, publishers are expected to account for how publication charges are applied and tracked. This adds pressure to day to day operations, especially when different funders, agreements, and reporting rules need to be coordinated accurately. Open access is no longer a one time strategy. It is part of ongoing publishing work.
Scholarly publishing workflows now handle growing volumes of sensitive data, spanning author details, peer review records, usage analytics, and automated assessments. As more data moves through publishing systems, expectations around privacy, security, and responsible use are rising across institutions and funding bodies.
Publishers are expected to show how data is handled in line with regulations and ethical standards. This involves safeguarding reviewer information, maintaining secure systems, and clearly explaining how data is used. Confidence in publishing operations increasingly depends on how well these practices are built into everyday work.
Taken together, these trends point to a single, shared challenge for scholarly publishers. Artificial intelligence, accessibility, integrity, peer review, metadata, open access, and data governance are no longer issues that can be handled separately or in isolation. When workflows remain fragmented, publishers face higher compliance risk, inconsistent quality, and limited scalability.
Preparing for 2026 requires a shift toward integrated workflows that connect editorial, production, compliance, and technology functions. Structured publishing operations make it possible to apply governance consistently, support accessibility and integrity requirements, and adapt to ongoing change. This operational foundation is becoming essential for publishers seeking resilience, accountability, and long term sustainability.
The years ahead will show how well scholarly publishers manage change without losing sight of responsibility. Expectations around quality, compliance, and transparency are rising, and publishers will need to adapt while keeping editorial standards and trust intact. Those that build clear, consistent, and accountable ways of working will be better placed to respond to regulation, technology shifts, and changing research needs.
Getting ready for what comes next is not about chasing trends. It is about maintaining publishing practices that support reliable, inclusive, and credible research communication over the long term.
