This article analyses academic publishing in modern society by means of a governance model focusing on three groups of governors: Regulators, Market Actors, and Professions. It demonstrates how these three groups have interacted and how this interaction has put pressure on faculty members to produce publications for top journals. It also points to the strong position of publishers, which leads to high profit margins. The article therefore also discusses different possible measures to change the publishing system.

This article deals with the transition to open access in Sweden, as part of the general transition to open science. Goals set by the Parliament and the government are discussed, as well as the strategies of the national Bibsam consortium, handling national deals with publishers, and of the Swedish Association of Higher Education Institutions. The development from the first stages in this process, where a main goal was to gain cost control, over a period with read-and-publish agreements to a situation where transformative agreements seem to tend to become permanent, is analysed. Finally, a number of possible scenarios for future developments are discussed, arguing for the need for university leadership to take an active part in the work towards a transition; it is not only an issue for individual researchers, or for librarians, but for the research community as a whole where universities are key players.

The European Plan S initiative intending to transform the field of academic publishing towards open access has been received with both enthusiasm and criticism. This article reflects on this case as an example of how policymaking in ‘the Europe of Knowledge’ – characterized by increasing complexity caused by problems of multi-level coordination, combined with multi-actor divergence of norms, ideas, and interests − affects and triggers university responses. The analysis of response to this initiative for reform of scientific publishing takes the concept of normative match and mismatch as its theoretical point of departure, and the article provides an overview of how Plan S has been implemented in Norwegian higher education, where the challenge for universities has been to find a balance between responding to political expectations and expectations from societal and academic stakeholders. Our findings suggest a normative mismatch related to the Plan S initiative. The article argues that the university level was left with the task of defending the academic freedom of the individual scholar, while also being delegated the responsibility of controlling the rising costs of publishing services. As a result, issues relating to academic publishing are currently of strategic interest to universities.

This article looks at publication strategies from two perspectives. First, the author describes her own publication strategy. She shows how it evolved over time and explains why she adopted a balanced strategy mixing books and papers, English and French, collective and individual authorship. She then builds on her experience as co-editor of two journals, one French and one international, analyses the consequences of the passage of the first to a big commercial publisher and compares the decision-making processes in the two cases. She finishes by pleading for decision-making procedures that allow more discussions and collegial work than the current systems of editors soliciting reviewers.

Blind peer review has become the gold standard of many scholarly disciplines. However, this seems like a paradox since openness is deeply embedded in the DNA of research. Over the last 30 years changes in the managerial paradigms of academia have also induced so many changes in the ecosystem of scholarly communication that many scholars describe the present situation as a crisis. Therefore, in light of the availability of new technologies and the changes in the scholarly communication ecosystems, it might be time to review how we assess research quality and address the paradox of the blindness of peer review.

The world around us is growing increasingly digital and data-intensive, affecting our lives and practices as citizens and researchers in a multitude of ways. We have to ask how we ensure that academic research remains trustworthy and transparent as digitalization disrupts our practices. This article draws attention to the multifaceted nature of the challenges early-career researchers face with academic publishing in the digital era. Thus, rather than zooming in on one aspect, and losing track of the complexity of the problem, it addresses (1) the purpose of academic publishing, (2) the type of material to be published, (3) the role and use of AI and data in research, (4) the entanglement of academic publishing and research assessment, (5) the role of Open Science, and (6) what makes early-career researchers as a group different from other researchers.

From ancient times, African civilization has participated in knowledge production and dissemination. The nature of research production and publishing in Africa varied throughout the years according to the influences and infrastructures present at each point in time. The colonization era was a landmark in the evolution of research practice and research publishing in Africa. It had consequences that lasted long after independence and contributed to the underdevelopment of research production and publishing systems in Africa. Currently, Africa is lagging behind in terms of its contribution to global research. An increase in African research output and an improvement of its visibility are needed. The digitization of research publishing holds great opportunities for the enhancement of scholarly publishing systems in Africa, yet it is faced with challenges. This article identifies the major challenges faced by governments, institutions, and scholars in digitizing research publishing in Africa. These challenges include limited funding, poor infrastructures, low research output, language barriers, difficulties in establishing quality assurance, copyright issues, data-management issues, and lack of policies and regulations. Addressing these challenges in local contexts is necessary to enhance digital research publishing in Africa.

As digital publishing gains momentum globally, it presents unique challenges in different regions and cultures. To address these challenges, it is important to understand the specificities of each local context. In light of Actor Network Theory (ANT), which advocates an interdisciplinary approach through an association of related factors from different fields, this article examines problems of Chinese digital publishing, focusing on one giant database, called the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The discussion falls into three parts. First, the self-positioning of CNKI. As the sole academic database giant, it encounters a dilemma between making profits and serving the public – it has been criticized for charging high subscription fees and for committing intellectual property infringements. Second, the scholars, while becoming more dependent on digital publishing and such a giant database as CNKI, are bewildered by the fact that they become less capable of protecting their academic autonomy as well as their intellectual copyright. Third, CNKI’s near monopoly has damaged domestic academic justice, which becomes detrimental to the development of Chinese academic journals and the international transmission of Chinese scholarship. The article concludes with an inquiry into possible solutions for building a new academic ecosystem in the digital era, locally as well as globally.

This article describes the internationalization of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), an open-science programme aimed at the development of capacities and infrastructure in research communication. It manages open-access collections of preprints, articles, research data, books, and book chapters, with a focus on national collections of non-profit peer-reviewed journals published by research communities of academic institutions, scientific societies, and associations. Celebrating 25 years of regular operation, SciELO improves research communication through professionalization, internationalization and sustainability of the indexed journals, maximizing their visibility and impact. In Brazil, the internationalization efforts by SciELO are aligned with national research policies, especially the internationalization of graduate programmes. The SciELO Brazil collection of journals evolves by adopting English solely or with Portuguese to improve the contribution of multilingualism to performing research by subject field. This article covers two decades of scientific literature in SciELO Brazil from 2003 to 2022. During this time, articles written in English or simultaneously in Portuguese and English increased significantly, resulting in a corresponding rise in access and citations received. The progress of the internationalization of the journals in the SciELO Brazil collection through multilingualism has been challenging both operationally and programmatically.