A&A community survey on the future of scientific publishing: Credibility over speed, fairness over profit, human judgment over automation
A 2025 survey of nearly 3,000 astronomers reveals that the scientific community prioritizes credibility, fairness, and human oversight over speed, profit, and automation, providing a clear mandate for *Astronomy & Astrophysics* to shape its future editorial policies accordingly.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the world of scientific publishing as a massive, bustling marketplace where astronomers trade their discoveries. For a long time, this marketplace had a few specific rules: you paid to enter, speed was often prized over quality, and a small group of gatekeepers decided what got displayed. But recently, three big storms have hit the market: the push for everyone to see the goods for free (Open Access), the arrival of powerful new robots (Artificial Intelligence), and a growing demand for the marketplace to be fair and honest.
To figure out how to navigate these storms, the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A) decided to ask the people who actually sell the goods—the astronomers themselves. They sent out a digital "town hall" survey to nearly 29,000 researchers. About 3,000 people from 69 countries stopped to answer. Here is what they told us, translated into everyday language.
1. What Matters Most? (Reputation vs. Speed)
When astronomers decide where to put their work, they aren't looking for the fastest delivery service or the flashiest billboard. They are looking for a trusted seal of quality.
Think of it like buying a house. You don't just care about how quickly the agent can hand you the keys; you care about the structural integrity of the building and the reputation of the builder. The survey showed that the journal's reputation and quality are the top priorities. If a journal is known for being rigorous and fair, astronomers want to publish there.
Surprisingly, speed is low on the list. Astronomers are willing to wait a bit longer if it means their work is reviewed carefully. They also care about cost, but not as much as they care about the journal's integrity. They want to know that the "price tag" on publishing isn't forcing the editors to cut corners.
2. The Gatekeepers (Peer Review)
Before a paper gets published, it is checked by other experts. This is called "peer review." The survey found that astronomers are mostly worried about who is doing the checking, not how fast they are doing it.
- The Problem: Sometimes, the "inspectors" (reviewers) don't really understand the specific topic, or they are unfair. Imagine a mechanic trying to fix a spaceship because they only know how to fix tractors. That leads to bad advice.
- The Fix: Astronomers want reviewers who are true experts. They also want the process to be fair, without bias based on where the author is from or who they know.
- The Feedback Loop: Many researchers complained that reviews often feel like a rejection letter rather than a helpful guide. They want the "inspectors" to give constructive advice that helps improve the work, not just tear it apart.
3. The Future of the Marketplace (Credibility is King)
If you asked the community what the most important goal for the future of scientific journals should be, the answer was unanimous: Credibility.
They want to make sure the scientific record is honest and reproducible. They are worried about "salami publishing"—the practice of slicing one big discovery into many tiny, weak papers just to get more publications. They prefer fewer, high-quality papers that tell the whole story.
They also see the journal's future role shifting. Since scientists can already share their work instantly on free "preprint" servers (like a digital bulletin board), the journal's main job shouldn't just be "giving access." Instead, the journal should act as the certifier—the official stamp that says, "Yes, this has been checked, it's valid, and it belongs in the permanent library."
4. The Money Question (Open Access)
"Open Access" means anyone can read the research for free. Everyone agrees this is a good thing. However, there is a huge disagreement about how to pay for it.
Currently, many journals charge the author a fee (called an APC) to publish. Astronomers hate this. They see it as unfair, especially for scientists with little money or those from poorer countries. It's like a toll booth that stops good ideas from getting out just because the driver is broke.
- The Preferred Solution: The community wants the cost to be shared. They prefer models where governments, institutions, or libraries pay collectively, rather than asking the individual author to pay.
- The A&A Model: The journal Astronomy & Astrophysics doesn't charge authors directly. Instead, it's supported by a mix of library subscriptions and institutional sponsorships. The survey confirmed that the community likes this "community-owned" approach and wants to keep it that way.
5. The Robots (Artificial Intelligence)
This is where the community is very clear: Robots are helpful assistants, but they are not the bosses.
- What they like: Using AI to fix grammar, check for typos, organize references, or help non-native English speakers write better. It's like having a spell-checker or a personal editor.
- What they hate: Letting AI write the science, make the final decisions on what gets published, or generate the images and data.
- The Golden Rule: If AI is used, humans must be in the loop. The journal must be transparent about when AI is used. You wouldn't want a robot to decide if a bridge is safe to cross without a human engineer double-checking the math.
The Bottom Line
The survey paints a picture of a community that values integrity over speed, fairness over profit, and human judgment over automation.
The astronomers are saying: "We trust you, the journal, to be our honest broker. Keep the quality high, keep the costs fair, and don't let the robots take the wheel." The journal Astronomy & Astrophysics has taken this feedback to heart, promising to build its future policies around these values, ensuring that science remains a human endeavor built on trust.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.