The 2030 Mirage: Why 'Process-Based' Publishing is a Predatory Paradise

The Dangerous Myth of the Journal as a 'Process'

The Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is currently patting itself on the back in Boston, asking what a journal will look like in 2030. They’re using soft, visionary language: journals as "communities," journals as "platforms," and most dangerously, journals as a "process" rather than a product. Let’s be clear, this isn’t just semantic hair-splitting. It is a structural surrender to the very forces currently gutting academic integrity.

When we stop seeing a journal as a fixed, validated object, we basically hand the keys to the kingdom to fraudsters. If publication is just a "process," then the money follows the activity rather than the result. This is exactly what paper mills in Eastern Europe and Asia want. You end up paying for the administrative theater of participation rather than actual quality. It is a one-way trip to a mountain of junk science that no one can replicate.

The Alchemy of Accountability

Predatory publishers have already mastered the "journal as a process" model. They’ve realized that if you speed up the process, AI-generated peer reviews, automated editorial checks, and "accelerated" publication workflows, you can maximize volume while minimizing friction. The move toward "AI-enabled environments" discussed at the New Directions Seminar isn't a tool for editors; it’s an invitation for bad actors to industrialize fraud at a scale we can’t even fathom in 2026.

By shifting the focus to these airy, abstract definitions, the industry is ignoring the cold reality of the cash. The recent talk about "co-creating the future" sounds nice, but it ignores who is footing the bill. If we do not kill the toxic incentives of the Author-Pays system, then by 2030, a journal will be nothing more than a receipt. It will be proof that a researcher paid to put a line on their CV, nothing more.

The Death of Editorial Judgment

We are hearing a lot about "navigating the evolving role of editorial judgment." In industry-speak, that’s code for "we are replacing expensive human experts with cheap algorithmic filters." The moment we decouple human expertise from the gatekeeping function, we lose the only barrier left against systemic fraud. A process-based journal in 2030 won't have the teeth to retract a fraudulent paper because the "process" was followed, and the fees were collected.

A Radical Blueprint for 2030

If we want to rescue this world, we have to stop worrying about being polite and start being aggressive about standards. Two things need to happen right now. First, we need validation that exists outside the publisher's walls (a third-party audit that can yank a DOI regardless of what the journal wants). Second, we need to talk about money. If a publisher takes cash for a paper mill product because their AI checks were lazy, they should have to pay back the grant agencies. Plain and simple.

The future isn't something we "enter" or "co-create" with a smile; it’s a battlefield. If we continue to treat journals as fluid processes rather than rigorous bastions of truth, by 2030, the word "journal" will be synonymous with "scam."