Prophy

Knowledge knows no borders. 🎓 Partnering with American University of Sharjah! Ranked among the top 10 Arab universities, AUS brings together 6,000+ students from 90+ countries. Their research centers span AI, sustainability, materials science, and Arab-Islamic heritage—creating a truly interdisciplinary research environment. Here's to advancing scholarship across the Gulf region!

A prediction about AI in peer review that should make publishers uncomfortable—from Prof. Graham Kendall, Vice Chancellor at MILA University. The disclosure problem is already here. AI use in writing and reviewing is widespread and underreported. But as LLMs continue training on published scientific literature, what's in that training data matters enormously. Text generated by a model, published, then fed back into the next generation of models creates a loop that's nearly impossible to audit after the fact. The integrity of future AI systems depends, in part, on the integrity of what we're publishing today. How confident are you that your current peer review process can distinguish AI-generated submissions from human-authored ones? #PeerReview #ResearchIntegrity #AIinScience #ScholarlyCommunication

Two powerful updates for grant management! 🎯 → Saved Search for Grants lets you save and quickly access your most-used grant search queries, eliminating repetitive filtering across large application volumes. → Grants + Commissioning Tool Integration brings your grant workflows into our Commissioning environment, streamlining how you manage reviewer assignments for grant proposals. Available to organizations with advanced grant management capabilities. #GrantManagement #SavedSearches #CommissioningTool #Prophy

A candid, 60-minute conversation on the future of academic assessment — from the stubbornness of impact factors and journal rankings to the growing pressure for metrics that capture teaching, advocacy, and real-world impact. Each panelist shares a bold prediction, followed by live audience Q&A. Who this is for: Research Managers, Funding Administrators, Journal Editors, and anyone who decides what gets published — or who gets promoted. 📅 March 26, 2026 🕐 12:00 GMT / 7:00 AM ET / 1:00 PM CET 📍 LinkedIn Live — free to attend

🚨 Webinar Today at 12:00 GMT: https://lnkd.in/dK8y9sVu Join four experts for a candid, 60-minute panel on how academic assessment is about to change—and what it means for scholarly publishing. In this session, you'll hear: - Each panelist's bold prediction for how researcher evaluation will shift in the next 2-5 years - Whether broader metrics will replace journal prestige—or make it stronger - How publishers can prepare for changes in how academics are assessed If you're in journal publishing, research management, or funding—this is for you. Register now and get the recording after: https://lnkd.in/dK8y9sVu Hosted by Prophy—helping publishers and funders identify and evaluate researchers at scale.

Four senior publishing professionals were asked what research integrity threats are coming in the next two to five years. None of them named a problem that peer review, as currently practiced, could reliably catch. Not because peer review is broken, but because the threats have moved: - Citation farms - AI-contaminated literature - Coordinated authorship fraud across submission batches These don't live inside a manuscript. They live in the patterns across thousands of manuscripts, authorship networks, and citation databases. The defence needs to shift to the point of submission—or even before it. Catch it before the reviewer sees it. Full breakdown in the comments. #ResearchIntegrity #ScholarlPublishing #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing

When publishers struggle to find reviewers, manuscripts sit and wait. Sometimes for months. In one case documented in Prophy’s analysis, a paper was submitted in September 2024 and published in August 2025—nearly 11 months from submission to publication. For an established researcher, that’s frustrating. But for a PhD student waiting on a publication before a fellowship application, a job offer, or even a visa renewal, it’s something else entirely. An 11-month delay can derail an entire career trajectory. The editorial efficiency discussion usually focuses on journal quality or workflow bottlenecks—and those are important. But the researchers on the other end of those delays are real people, with real deadlines that don’t pause while peer review catches up. In that sense, faster review isn’t just an operational improvement. It’s a responsibility.

The next research integrity crisis won't announce itself. Sukhwant Singh, COO at Newgen KnowledgeWorks, calls it credibility dilution—research that clears every technical bar but hasn't been properly contextualised or stress-tested still makes it through. At scale, that shapes which findings get built upon, which directions get funded, and which errors get replicated. The response has to move upstream. Not more detection at the end, but stronger validation before formal peer review even begins—when there's still time to course-correct. Is your workflow designed for the volume and pace that's already here—or the volume that's coming? #ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #ScholarlyCommunication #AcademicPublishing

Publish or perish. Count the citations. Check the journal ranking. For decades, academic careers have been built on three numbers. Four people who live inside this system think the next 2–5 years will force a reckoning - and they don't all agree on what comes next. Join us for Prophy Predicts, a live panel where researchers, publishers, and research advocates share their bold predictions for how academic assessment is about to change — and what it means for scholarly publishing.

A reviewer evaluating a manuscript is doing exactly what peer review was designed for. What they can’t see, though, are the signals outside the manuscript itself. They can’t tell whether the listed authors belong to a known fraud cluster. They can’t see that three structurally similar manuscripts from the same source were submitted to different journals in the same week. They can’t detect that the citation network around the paper carries the signature of a citation farm. None of that appears in the manuscript. But it is detectable—if you’re looking at the right level of the system, and early enough in the workflow. Analyzing authorship patterns and citation networks at submission changes the starting point. The reviewer is no longer the first line of defence; they become a better-informed second one. The reviewer’s judgment doesn’t change. What changes is the information they begin with. Catch the signals before the manuscript reaches the reviewer—not to replace peer review, but to make it count.