13 May 2025
Nataliia Kaliuzhna
TIB – Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology
Open Science Lab
The 2025 conference season in scholarly communication and publishing industry kicked off with the UKSG 48th Annual Conference and Exhibition, held in sunny Brighton from 31st March to 2nd April. It was my first time visiting the UK and attending the UKSG conference, so I arrived genuinely excited and curious about what the experience would bring. Over the course of three days, the conference offered a rich blend of insightful presentations on pressing topics in scientific communication, thought-provoking panel discussions, and, of course, invaluable opportunities to reconnect with colleagues and forge new professional connections. It was a real pleasure to finally meet in person the wonderful people I have been working with on volunteer projects. I caught up with the DOAJ team—Joanna, Lena, and Matt—as well as Francesca and Feya, whom I know through my work with the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
One thing I really appreciated about the program was how the breakout sessions were scheduled. Instead of the usual dilemma of choosing between two great sessions happening at the same time, many of them were offered more than once. That meant I could actually attend the ones I was most excited about — without the stress of missing out. It was such a thoughtful touch that made the whole experience more relaxed and rewarding.
One of the sessions that really stood out to me, and stayed with me long after it ended, was “This house believes journals are no longer the only publishing option,” featuring an engaging lineup of speakers: Toby Green from Coherent Digital Policy Commons, David Worlock from Outsell Inc., and Charlotte Wien from Elsevier. What struck me most was how convincingly the panel highlighted the mismatch between the fast-paced, open nature of digital dissemination and the often slow, rigid mechanisms of traditional journals.
The panelists made a particularly strong case for the self-publishing models used by NGOs and think tanks, highlighting how these approaches not only bypass the delays of traditional peer review but also enhance accessibility and public engagement. One point that stood out to me was the misconception that such outputs are not peer-reviewed. In fact, they often undergo rigorous review processes—just not the kind typically used by academic journals.
For example, the OECD was mentioned as a case in point: its publications and reports are reviewed by dozens of experts before being released, yet they are still often perceived as lacking formal quality control. Another interesting observation was that the reputation of the publishing organization itself often serves as a marker of quality.
I found myself nodding along, especially when imagining how this model could be adopted by universities and research institutions. If academic institutions took on the role of publishing and implemented their own quality assurance processes, it could offer a viable alternative to traditional peer review and potentially address some of its long-standing challenges.
Another thought-provoking sessions I attended and particularly enjoyed was titled “Shared responsibility (or failure)? Who should bear the burden of maintaining the integrity of the scientific record?”, chaired by Sara Rouhi from AIP Publishing.
The discussion drifted toward explaining why publishers cannot do more, why integrity checks are expensive, why small publishers lack resources, and why responsibility should be “shared.” While I understand that research integrity is a systemic issue, I left with the impression that publishers, particularly commercial ones, are still reluctant to take real ownership of their role in ensuring quality.
Libraries were quite clear: if they are paying for content, they expect it to be trustworthy. That expectation is not unreasonable. And funders echoed this, saying they want to know that what gets published under their funding has passed meaningful scrutiny. To me, this is not about unfairly burdening publishers—it is about meeting the basic standards the scholarly community depends on.
Yes, small publishers have constraints, but many larger ones have the means to invest in better workflows, integrity checks, and transparency—and yet often do not, unless there is external pressure. That is what I found disappointing. Integrity cannot be optional, nor should it be framed as an extra service.
What I took away from this session is that we need a shift in culture, not just cost-sharing. Publishers benefit from being gatekeepers of academic legitimacy. With that privilege comes responsibility—not only to adopt technology and policies that prevent misconduct, but to be transparent about how they do it.
One line from the session really stayed with me. Someone casually remarked, “You cannot outsource integrity,” and it landed hard. It summed up the entire conversation in just a few words. Yes, research integrity is a shared responsibility, but that does not mean publishers can sidestep their part just because the system is messy or resource-heavy. Everyone: researchers, institutions, funders, and especially publishers has to actively show up if we want trust in scholarly publishing to mean something.
Talking about the exhibition, I thoroughly enjoyed exploring it at the conference, where the diversity of publishers, innovative technologies, and exciting new initiatives were on full display. I spent some time at the stand of the OAPEN Foundation, where I had the chance to chat with Community Manager Silke Davison, learn more about their work, including the latest developments in open access book publishing and explored possibilities for future collaboration.
The social part of the conference was beyond enjoyable, with highlights including an interactive quiz and lively music that brought everyone together in a fun, relaxed atmosphere. I truly enjoyed the experience and am very grateful to UKSG for the opportunity to be part of such a vibrant and welcoming community.