The forgotten stakeholder – the reader

Ashutosh Ghildiyal explains why the consumer must come first in scholarly publishing

The landscape of scholarly publishing has undergone a profound transformation in recent decades, shifting towards an increasingly author-centric model. This change, driven by evolving business models, has introduced numerous challenges for the academic community. As submission volumes surge and publication metrics dominate academic careers, issues of research integrity have become increasingly prevalent. The rise of digital publishing, open access models, and preprint servers has democratised academic publishing, but it has also raised concerns about quality control and the reliability of published findings.

While scholarly publishing offers authors valuable platforms for dissemination, its true value lies in advancing human knowledge through a reader-centric approach. By prioritising the interests of readers, publishers can better serve all stakeholders – including authors – by ensuring the quality and significance of published research.

Publishers now find themselves at a crossroads, balancing the need to support authors’ career progression with their core responsibility of disseminating trustworthy research to readers. This tension manifests in the proliferation of low-quality research, growing concerns about scientific reproducibility, and an overwhelming volume of unread papers that dilute truly valuable contributions.

As we enter an era where artificial intelligence and automation promise to reshape scholarly communication, the academic publishing community must confront essential questions about its purpose, values, and future direction. The sustainability of publishing models and, more critically, the integrity of the scholarly record are at stake. These factors will ultimately determine how effectively publishing can continue to advance human knowledge.

The transformation of scholarly publishing

Scholarly publishers have long served as custodians of knowledge – knowledge that has the potential to propel human civilisation forward in its understanding of the world. Their mission extends beyond the mere distribution of information; it supports humanity’s pursuit of technological advancement, material well-being, and a deeper comprehension of our place in the universe.

While publishing provides researchers with essential platforms to share their work, its core purpose must remain focused on the reader. Whether an expert, policymaker, or informed citizen, the reader has a deeper stake in the content than the author, for whom publication often serves as a vehicle for career progression. When publishing begins to prioritise author services at the expense of reader value, it risks drifting away from its foundational mission.

Today’s publishing landscape is dominated by author-focused priorities: user-friendly submission systems, faster turnaround times, and an ever-expanding array of journals. While these features support researcher convenience, they often come at the cost of the reader’s experience. In this paradigm, quantity too often eclipses quality. Academic advancement is frequently tied to metrics such as publication volume and citation counts, rather than the actual contribution to scientific understanding.

The rise of predatory journals, paper mills, and questionable research practices further highlights the fragility of an author-first model. When publishing becomes primarily a service for authors rather than a curated, trusted resource for readers, the scholarly record grows increasingly fragmented and less reliable.

The author-reader dilemma

The current publishing model creates a misalignment between the interests of authors and readers. Authors often approach publication as a career milestone, aiming to secure publication rather than serving the reader. Readers, on the other hand, have a higher stake in content quality, relying on it for research, policy-making, and practical application.

This misalignment leads to several critical issues:

• The proliferation of low-quality research that floods the scholarly record
• Increasing research integrity issues that undermine scientific credibility
• The overwhelming volume of unread papers that dilute valuable findings
• Systematic pollution of the scholarly record with unreliable content

The disconnect between author goals and reader needs does not invalidate research without an immediate readership. Editorial skill lies in anticipating and understanding what future readers may find valuable. Strong editorial decisions combine human intuition, perceptiveness, and technical expertise.

The art and science of editorial judgment

Editorial responsibility extends beyond technical evaluation. The art of editorial judgment involves:

• Anticipating future reader value in emerging research
• Balancing subjective intuition with objective assessment
• Understanding human needs and the potential benefits of research
• Maintaining quality standards while fostering innovation

A narrow focus on technical factors contributes significantly to research integrity issues. When manuscripts lack meaningful readership or evaluation, the system fails its primary audience. Although some publishers maintain reader-centric principles, these represent exceptions rather than the industry standard.

Research integrity: addressing root causes

Many discussions of research integrity focus on symptoms rather than root causes, possibly due to an assumption that fundamental change is impossible. This assumption inhibits a holistic exploration of solutions and fosters a fear of consequences that prevents necessary reforms.

Publishers must recognise that:

• Confidence in publishing’s value allows for bold reform
• Addressing root causes requires systematic change
• Fear of change perpetuates existing problems
• Real value creation eliminates the need for defensive postures

The case for reader-centric publishing

To restore balance, scholarly publishers must reaffirm their commitment to readers – prioritising the dissemination of high-quality, relevant research to those who need it most. This reader-centric approach aligns with the true purpose of science: generating rigorous, reproducible, and meaningful insights that contribute to collective knowledge.

To reclaim a reader-centric focus, publishers must take specific steps:

1. Deliver relevant, high-quality research to targeted audiences
2. Engage researchers and readers in defining valuable research
3. Balance editorial expertise with robust peer review
4. Ensure sufficient time and resources for manuscript evaluation
5. Prioritise reader value over submission volume

A more inclusive approach is necessary – one that invites both researchers and readers to participate in defining what constitutes valuable scholarship. Editors and publishing professionals should not unilaterally shape this landscape. Community-based review models, post-publication commentary, and other collaborative quality-assessment mechanisms can help democratise evaluation while upholding standards. Within this framework, peer review serves not as a gatekeeper, but as a constructive force that strengthens research.

By shifting focus back to readers, author behaviour will naturally align. A discerning readership that actively evaluates and questions research creates accountability. Evidence suggests that many research integrity issues stem from insufficient manuscript evaluation time, which is exacerbated by increasing submission volumes.

The role of AI in quality control

AI has transformative potential to enhance the publishing process by:

• Screening submissions and filtering low-quality papers before human review
• Performing comprehensive technical and qualitative pre-checks
• Creating additional time for thorough editorial and peer evaluation
• Supporting reviewers with automated technical verification
• Optimising reviewer selection and workflow management

AI can enhance peer review by reducing administrative burdens and fostering intellectual engagement. AI-enabled systems can promote optimal reviewer focus, provide immediate feedback, and offer expertise-aligned tasks. Additionally, AI can support reviewer development through training and long-term engagement incentives.

However, AI must augment human capabilities rather than replace them. The goal is to provide scholars with more time for meaningful work, not to automate creativity. While AI offers efficiency gains, authentic creativity arises solely from human insight and experience.

Rethinking economic models for reader-centric publishing

A shift to a reader-centric model requires re-evaluating the economic structures that govern scholarly publishing. The prevailing author-pays Open Access (OA) model, while increasing accessibility, can exacerbate the pressure to publish, potentially compromising quality. Conversely, traditional subscription models, while providing stable revenue, can limit access and may not incentivize quality over quantity.

To prioritise reader value, we need to explore alternative or hybrid economic models:

• Tiered institutional subsidies: Institutions could provide subsidies based on publication quality and impact rather than volume, incentivising rigorous peer review and impactful research. One idea worth exploring is the development of a system to rank journals based on the quality of their peer review.
• Reader-funded models: Platforms could allow readers to directly support high-quality research in their fields, aligning funding with reader demand
• Consortia-based funding: Libraries and research institutions could fund high-quality publishing initiatives, providing a stable revenue stream while meeting the research community’s needs
• Public-private partnerships: Governments and private foundations could collaborate to fund open access platforms that prioritize quality and reader value.
• Value-based metrics: Shift from simple citation counts to metrics measuring actual usage and impact on real-world problems, focusing on research’s broader societal relevance

These models require careful consideration and experimentation, but they represent just a few examples of the many possible alternatives. Each offers a promising pathway toward building a more sustainable, reader-focused publishing ecosystem.

Implementing and enforcing change

Implementing a reader-centric approach requires concrete mechanisms for enforcement and accountability:

• Standardised quality metrics: Develop metrics that go beyond citation counts to include factors like reproducibility, impact, and relevance
• Independent auditing and oversight: Establish independent bodies to audit and oversee publishing practices, ensuring adherence to ethical guidelines
• Transparency and open data: Promote transparency in peer review and require publishers to make data and code associated with publications publicly available
• Incentive structures: Create incentives for researchers, reviewers, and editors that prioritise quality over quantity
• Community-driven governance: Empower the research community to participate in the governance of scholarly publishing
• AI-driven monitoring: Utilise AI tools to monitor for misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and image manipulation

Conclusion: reclaiming the reader at the heart of scholarly publishing

The journey from a reader-centric to an author-centric publishing model has created significant challenges for the scholarly ecosystem. As we navigate this critical inflection point, we must recognise that meaningful reform requires a fundamental realignment of priorities rather than superficial changes to existing systems.

By re-centring readers in the scholarly publishing process, we can address the root causes of many pressing issues – from research integrity concerns to sustainability challenges. This shift is not merely philosophical but practical: it acknowledges that the true value of research lies not in its mere existence but in its ability to inform, inspire, and advance human knowledge.

The path forward requires courage from all stakeholders. Publishers must embrace their role as stewards of knowledge rather than service providers. Researchers must reconnect with the fundamental purpose of their work beyond career metrics. Institutions and funders must recalibrate incentive structures to reward quality and impact over quantity. And emerging technologies like AI must be deployed thoughtfully to enhance human judgment rather than replace it.

This reader-centric transformation offers a vision of scholarly publishing that is not only more sustainable but more meaningful– a system that fulfils its essential purpose of advancing human understanding by ensuring that published research reaches and serves those who need it most. By embracing this vision, we can build a scholarly ecosystem that honours both the creators and consumers of knowledge while securing the integrity of the scholarly record for generations to come.

The future of scholarly publishing lies not in choosing between author and reader interests, but in recognising that by truly serving readers, we ultimately create the greatest value for authors and society alike. The time has come to reclaim this fundamental truth as we chart the course for academic publishing in the digital age.

Ashutosh Ghildiyal is VP, Strategy and Growth at Integra Software Services

Do you want to read more content like this? SUBSCRIBE to the Research Information Newsline!