Publishing Trends to Watch in 2026: AI, Open Science, and Peer Review Reform
As 2025 wraps up, many of us in scholarly publishing are taking stock of the year, what worked, what didn’t, and what continues to challenge our workflows. From training editors to responding to new integrity concerns, I’ve seen a pattern of gradual adjustments rather than dramatic change. Based on these experiences, three areas will continue shaping our work in 2026: thoughtful use of AI tools, growing open science requirements, and efforts to strengthen peer review (1).
Trends to Watch in AI, Open Science, and Peer Review Reform
AI Adoption: Practical Use Over Big Promises
Open Science Mandates: Increasing Expectations, Uneven Readiness
Peer Review: Strengthening Trust Through Practical Measures
Looking Ahead: Steady, Constructive Progress
1. AI Adoption: Practical Use Over Big Promises
Despite the excitement around AI, most journals are adopting it slowly and selectively. Editors tend to apply AI where it genuinely reduces repetitive work, basic screening, clarity checks, or reporting compliance. Other areas still rely heavily on human judgment.
Many journals, especially smaller or regional ones, face practical challenges such as limited budgets, uneven digital infrastructure, and a lack of training. AI disclosure policies are emerging, but editors still have questions on what constitutes appropriate use and how to check for undisclosed assistance. These realities mean that AI adoption in 2026 will continue at a pace shaped by confidence, capacity, and hands-on experience rather than industry pressure.
If implemented with care, AI can support equity by helping editors and authors who work with limited resources. But this requires training, clear policies, and tools designed with diverse publishing communities in mind.
2. Open Science Mandates: Increasing Expectations, Uneven Readiness
Open science practices are gaining ground through funder and institutional policies. Data availability, preprints, and transparent methodology are becoming familiar requirements. However, readiness varies greatly across the world.
Many journals I work with struggle due to limited infrastructure (2). They may not have access to repositories, metadata systems, or tools to verify data accuracy. Editors often express uncertainty about enforcing new requirements when they themselves are still learning how to assess open data.
For journals in South Asia, MENA, and similar regions, open science offers an opportunity to improve visibility. But real progress depends on investing in identifiers, better metadata, and training for editorial teams. Without this foundation, mandates alone can feel burdensome.
A more sustainable approach (3) is continued collaboration, shared repositories, collective tools, and regional partnerships that allow journals to grow into open science rather than feeling pushed into it.
3. Peer Review: Strengthening Trust Through Practical Measures
Peer review (4) continues to feel the pressure of reviewer fatigue, rising submission volumes, and integrity concerns. Still, I’ve seen encouraging steps toward more transparent and supportive review systems.
Some journals are experimenting with publishing reviews or revealing reviewer identities when reviewers are willing. Others prefer anonymity due to cultural norms or workload constraints. Both choices are valid; what matters is clarity and consistency.
AI tools are slowly becoming part of the review process, but mostly as support systems. They help with structure, reporting standards, or summarization, allowing reviewers to focus on the science itself. The key is balance, not handing decision-making to AI, but letting it ease repetitive work.
Collaborative review models, such as transferable reviews or shared screening systems, are also gaining attention. They are not yet widespread, but even limited adoption helps reduce repeated reviews and unnecessary delays.
Finally, recognition for reviewers is improving. Certificates, reviewer credits, and formal training programs are becoming more common, and they contribute meaningfully to reviewer motivation and quality.
Looking Ahead: Steady, Constructive Progress
My outlook for 2026 is grounded in realism. The most meaningful changes in publishing often come from simple, consistent improvements, stronger editor training, shared tools, better communication, and measured policy development.
The areas that matter most in the coming year will likely be:
- Integrating AI where it genuinely supports editors
- Building open science capacity step by step
- Refining peer review practices to support trust and efficiency
- Focusing on equity in all decisions
None of these shifts will happen overnight, but the progress I see is steady and purposeful. With collaborative effort, 2026 can be a year where publishing becomes more transparent, more supported, and more resilient for communities across the world.
References and further reading:
1. https://editorscafe.org/details.php?id=15
2. https://editorscafe.org/details.php?id=61
4. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/09/15/ask-the-chefs-whats-a-bold-experiment-with-ai-in-peer-review-youd-like-to-see-tested/
