Browse by session 

As AI tools continue to evolve, they offer new opportunities for scholarly publishing beyond their use in manuscript preparation. This discussion will explore to what extent AI-generated reviews could provide useful support to authors, referees, editors, and readers. We will discuss how AI could complement the human peer-review process and identify which aspects of a manuscript are most suitable for AI-based evaluation, such as completeness, clarity, consistency, reporting standards, or technical checks, while recognizing that scientific assessment and judgment must remain with expert reviewers. Participants are encouraged to share their experiences with existing AI tools, including dedicated manuscript review platforms and experiments with prompting general large language models for manuscript assessment. The goal of the discussion is to develop concrete recommendations for whether, and if so, how AI-generated feedback could be integrated into EGU's transparent publishing model to maintain and strengthen our commitment to innovation, transparency, and the quality and integrity of scientific publishing.

EGU journals have established policies regarding the use of AI in manuscript preparation and handling, with guidelines provided for authors, editors, and referees. However, as AI tools continue to develop and become more widely used, the boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate use may not always be straightforward, and our understanding of ethical AI use in scholarly publishing will continue to evolve. This discussion will explore what constitutes inappropriate or unethical AI use in the publishing process and how potential cases may be detected and addressed. We will discuss how to distinguish acceptable from problematic use by authors, referees, and editors, how concerns about non-compliance should be evaluated, and what responses are appropriate when policies are not followed. The goal is to develop a shared understanding of how to handle suspected cases in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner, while ensuring that EGU policies remain adaptable as AI capabilities and publishing practices continue to evolve.

AI tools are already becoming part of several stages of the publishing workflow. For example, we use Prophy Referee Finder to support the identification of suitable referees. This discussion will explore what other AI-based features could provide useful support to editors and referees. Potential applications may include supporting editorial and review activities by helping, e.g., to organize information, summarize content, provide relevant context, or assist with routine checks related to manuscript handling. At the same time, potential limitations and risks need to be taken into account, including questions of reliability, confidentiality regarding appropriate use of manuscript content in AI systems. The discussion will focus on which AI applications could meaningfully support editors (and referees), where their use may improve the efficiency or quality of the publishing process, and what considerations are needed for their responsible implementation. Participants are encouraged to share experiences and insights from other journals and publishing platforms.

EGU journals have pioneered innovative approaches to scientific publishing, including interactive discussion and transparent peer review. Building on this tradition, we will explore how scientific publications can continue to evolve by making better use of opportunities for interactive approaches, new ways of presenting scientific content, and the integration of associated research outputs such as data, code, and other resources. This discussion will explore how scientific publications can evolve while maintaining the principles that define EGU journals: transparency, community-driven publishing, and high scientific quality. We will discuss how new approaches to publishing and communicating research could enhance the way scientific results are presented, evaluated and shared, while ensuring that reliability, rigor and trust remain central. The goal of the discussion is to identify promising directions for the future of scientific publications, including new interactive formats, integration of additional research outputs, novel opportunities for scientific communication and practical considerations for implementation.

EGU has been a pioneer in open access (OA) publishing, ensuring free access to scientific articles for readers. Diamond OA builds on this principle by removing financial barriers for authors as well, with publication costs covered through alternative funding mechanisms. his model is increasingly promoted by research funders, public agencies and infrastructures as a way to support equitable, community-driven publishing. As diamond OA models become more prominent, EGU needs to consider how its publications can remain attractive and competitive while ensuring a sustainable model that supports both scientific publishing and wider Union activities. The discussion will address opportunities and challenges of diamond OA, including funding mechanisms, long-term viability and the role of funding partners, while exploring approaches that combine the interests of EGU and the wider scientific community. The discussion aims to identify potential next steps for successively introducing diamond OA elements within EGU publications while maintaining their high scientific quality and community-driven approach.

Finding referees for scientific manuscripts has become increasingly challenging. Since peer review is a fundamental component of ensuring quality, reliability and integrity of scientific publications, strengthening reviewer engagement is essential. This discussion will explore how peer review contributions can be better recognized and supported, e.g., through formal credit systems, enhanced researcher profiles and other forms of acknowledgement. Beyond recognition, we will consider how reviewing may be more widely promoted as an educational opportunity and an integral responsibility of researchers to support the quality of the scientific record. Building on long-standing experience with transparent peer review and interactive discussion, the EGU publishing model could provide opportunities to broaden participation, support reviewer engagement and involve researchers more actively in the review process. Ultimately, this discussion aims to identify practical ways to increase participation in peer review, by improving recognition, exploring incentives, and supporting initiatives that foster a culture in which reviewing is valued as an essential contribution to scientific publishing.

Despite an APC scheme providing generous discounts and waivers for authors unable to pay publication fees, submission rates from some regions remain low. This raises questions about the reasons, including limitations in awareness of EGU journals and available support, visibility of publishing opportunities, and the understanding of the value of community-based publishing. The discussion will focus on ways to strengthen outreach to potential authors through EGU communication channels and community activities. In addition, complementary opportunities beyond EGU may be addressed as ways to reach researchers outside the EGU community. These may include, for example, external platforms such as ResearchGate, where readers accessing EGU articles are informed about APC coverage and potentially encouraged to submit to EGU journals in the future. The goal of the discussion is to identify practical steps for broadening global participation in EGU publications, including targeted outreach, improved communication of publishing opportunities and support schemes, and mechanisms that foster long-term involvement in EGU journals.

EGU is committed to transparency and open science, with reporting open data and open code. However, the reporting of data and code availability is handled with varying rigor across EGU journals, despite a common data policy. There may be valid reasons or regulatory constraints that prevent authors from sharing data, during the review process or at all, but exceptions and their handling are not always clearly defined. While data reporting standards are more established, code availability is less commonly reported and is currently only strictly mandatory in GMD, reflecting its scope as a model-focused journal. The discussion will focus on how to achieve a more consistent approach to data and code availability reporting across EGU journals while ensuring clear and transparent handling of justified exceptions. More consistent reporting could also provide a foundation for future initiatives that recognize and promote open science practices, such as labels or badges recognizing articles that demonstrate exceptional open science practices beyond mandatory reporting requirements.

Established in 2022, the Publications Promotion Task Force brings together members of PubCom, the EGU Office, and ECS to increase the visibility of the transparent, community-driven, not-for-profit EGU publications. It mainly addressed the promotion during the General Assembly and updates to EGU publication-related websites. The discussion will focus on actions to further increase the visibility of the EGU publishing model by reaching audiences within and beyond EGU and tailoring outreach to different groups. This may include expanding engagement through community networks, including Early Career Scientists, and online events, as well as improving communication channels and promotional materials that highlight the value of EGU’s community-based publishing and related topics. Future initiatives may be discussed to be developed with the incoming Editorial Manager. Emerging tools and communication channels, including AI and social media, will be considered for their potential to support more efficient and effective outreach. The overall goal is to define strategic priorities for increasing the visibility of EGU publications.