In November of 2022, the Research Software Alliance (ReSA) and the Netherlands eScience Center organized a two-day international workshop titled “The Future of Research Software.” In the workshop, funding organizations joined forces to explore how they could effectively contribute to making research software sustainable. The workshop had many participants from all continents and was a huge success.

How comprehensive are bibliographic databases when it comes to preprints? Ludo Waltman and Nees Jan van Eck provide six recommendations for improvement.

Infrastructure: what’s at stake {#infrastructure-what%E2%80%99s-at-stake} Infrastructure often is perceived as a “given”, as something that was always there, as “natural”. In the digital age, infrastructure seems more “natural” than ever (it's hard to imagine there was a time without internet connectivity in our mobile phones or even a time when phone lines were a luxury item) and the social and economic dimension of infrastructure tend to be

Digital object identifiers (DOIs) and relevant metadata have been used for 20 years to help preserve the scholarly record by maintaining stable links to scholarly publications and other important scholarly resources, combined with long-term archiving by publishers and libraries. Lots and tools and services have been built around this infrastructure to make it easier for scholars to consume and contribute to this scholarly record.

Since its release towards the end of 2022, ChatGPT has been dominating the majority of AI-related conversations on social media. One could almost say it has made AI more mainstream and accessible than ever. AI is quickly revolutionizing the modern-day research landscape. According to a CSIRO report, nearly 98% of scientific fields use AI in some way.

In October, the journal eLife announced that it will change how it handles peer review starting January 2023: To better understand what this change means for authors and reviewers, Upstream editor Martin Fenner asked Fiona Hutton, eLife's Head of Publishing, a few questions.

Researchers, librarians, policy makers, and practitioners often complain about the scholarly publishing system, but the system also offers exciting opportunities to contribute to innovations in the way academic findings are disseminated and evaluated.

A journey started with the INArxiv hosted by The Center of Open Science to RINarxiv hosted by BRIN Indonesia.

Since 2015 I’ve been steeped in the world of open access, academic publishing, and funder policies. This is a blip of time compared to many other experts and advocates in this space. I’ve often sardonically joked that if I had received a dollar for every time I’ve heard that open access will become the norm once the United States changes its policy I could retire early.

Take a look at the picture below. What do you see? Think for a moment and write down your observations or say them out loud. Did you see tracks in the snow and the shadow of trees in the background? Maybe you were more specific, noting there are different kinds of tracks going in different directions, and at least two trees casting shadows.