(6 May 2026) “AI isn’t just summarizing research; it is, in fact, selecting what needs to be shown in the overview. Publishers, journal editors, and peer reviewers are traditionally considered gatekeepers; they are the ones deciding what should be selected and what is worth reading. There have been so many panel discussions and articles written about gatekeeping and the biases and limitations. These are at least visible and contestable. But what about the kind of gatekeeping that AI introduces? It decides which papers to include, which findings to show, and which perspectives to omit. This filtering happens at the back end without any clear signs of what is being left out. This process is opaque, and there is no editorial board to question or peer reviewers to challenge….
Another important change we see is that publishers may no longer be the primary interface between the research and the reader. They have, in fact, become part of the underlying infrastructure, essential but not as visible. They continue to produce, curate, and validate content, but that content increasingly serves as input into other ecosystems rather than drawing users into their own. Their role becomes foundational, but less visible…
In such a situation, it’s important to consider: how can publishers continue to remain visible even when readers are not directly encountering their platforms? How does their role evolve beyond supplying credible content? Can they be instrumental in influencing transparency and traceability in AI outputs?”
Scholarly Kitchen has the full article here.
