Anna Troise is president for North America at Springer Nature, where she leads strategy across the research ecosystem. She took up the role in March 2026, following a career in scholarly publishing, medical education, and commercial leadership, with senior positions at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Wolters Kluwer, John Wiley & Sons, and Nature Publishing Group.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Troise considers how artificial intelligence, open access, and changing measures of research impact are reshaping scholarly publishing. She explains why human judgment and editorial accountability remain essential as researchers increasingly discover scientific work through platforms beyond traditional journals, and why research assessment should look beyond citation counts.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Looking ten years ahead, will scholarly journals still be the central organizing unit of research communication?

Anna Troise: I think journals will remain important, but they may no longer be the sole (or even primary), organizing unit for how researchers interact with knowledge.

Researchers already interact with preprints, datasets, code, protocols, and AI-powered discovery tools alongside traditional articles. The journal’s role as a trusted mechanism for expert validation and access remains incredibly valuable, but it is already part of a much broader research ecosystem. We are moving toward a world where knowledge flows across an interconnected network of research outputs, technologies, and communities.

The question is not whether journals survive. The question is how they evolve. Journals have weathered fundamental shifts in the research ecosystem and in technology before; those that have endured longest have done so because they have consistently worked hand in hand with scientists — through rigorous peer review and editorial insight — to strengthen and validate research. As expectations around access, transparency, and research impact continue to evolve, journals will need to build on those strengths to become not only destinations for rigorous, trustworthy articles but also hubs that connect and contextualize research, data, expertise, and communities.

Jacobsen: Publishers can now process far larger volumes of submissions. What safeguards prevent greater efficiency from becoming a push for volume at the expense of scientific quality?

Troise: The purpose of efficiency should be to improve quality, not replace it.

Technology can help us process more submissions and reduce friction in publishing workflows, but success cannot be measured simply by output volume. Ultimately, scale only creates value if researchers, institutions and funders continue to trust what we publish.

The best publishers will use technology to automate routine tasks so editors and reviewers can spend more time exercising judgment where it matters most. In an environment challenged by paper mills, manipulated content, and increasingly sophisticated AI-generated material, efficiency only matters if we preserve trust in the scientific record.

Jacobsen: AI could substantially reduce the cost of screening manuscripts. If it does, what essential value will scholarly publishers continue to offer researchers and institutions?

Troise: Trust and accountability. While AI is on its way to becoming very effective at screening manuscripts, detecting anomalies, and identifying integrity risks, AI cannot replace the meticulous human judgement that goes into determining the validity, significance, and rigor of a submitted manuscript. Publishers bring editorial expertise, research integrity capabilities, community governance, and stewardship of the scholarly record. We also convene the expert communities that evaluate and improve research. AI can enhance these processes, but it can’t replace responsibility for them.

In fact, as AI use becomes more common, trusted publishers may become even more important. When technology makes it easier to generate, screen and distribute information at scale, the ability to know what has been rigorously evaluated becomes more valuable, not less.

Jacobsen: Transformative agreements are intended to help shift scholarly publishing toward open access. How would you judge whether that transition has succeeded?

Troise: For me, the ultimate measure of success goes beyond the percentage of OA articles and looks at outcomes. Are discoveries reaching more people? Are researchers collaborating more easily? Is research being used more effectively by industry, policymakers, educators, and society? If the answer is yes, then open access is achieving what it was intended to do.

Jacobsen: Journal brands and citation metrics are deeply entwined with hiring, funding, and scientific prestige. How far should publishers go in reforming how research is assessed?

Troise: Publishers should be active participants in the evolution of research assessment, but we are not the only stakeholders. Hiring, promotion, tenure, and funding decisions are made by institutions, governments, funders, and research communities. Reform requires collective action.

I believe we have a role to play in helping the ecosystem move toward assessment models that better reflect the quality, rigor, openness, and real-world impact of research. Ultimately, assessment should tell us more about the contribution research has made, not simply where it was published or how often it was cited.

In fact, many of the conversations I’m having today focus on impact. What changed because this work was published? Did it influence policy? Improve patient outcomes? Shape local decision-making? Help a community solve a problem? Those are often more meaningful measures of impact than any single metric, and as publishers, we have an opportunity to help surface and share that evidence.

Jacobsen: What is the most significant structural change that scholarly publishers are currently underestimating?

Troise: I wouldn’t frame it as something the industry is underestimating, but among the most consequential structural changes currently facing publishers is the shift toward research discovery outside traditional journal venues. Discovery is increasingly happening through AI systems, social platforms, and other third-party tools. Researchers will engage with science wherever it is most useful and convenient. I don’t think our job is to resist that change, but to make sure that trust travels alongside the research through these new channels.

Publishers are stewards of the scholarly record: Our responsibility is to protect the integrity of the research entrusted to us, preserve the Version of Record, ensure appropriate attribution and make authoritative research distinguishable wherever it is discovered or consumed. At the same time, we are here to make the work of research and innovation more efficient, accessible, and creative. I don’t think these are opposing aims. If researchers increasingly choose to discover and interact with research through AI-enabled or other tools, then we need to be present where they are and safeguard the integrity and value of the scholarly record.

As discovery becomes more multi-channel, part of our role will be to ensure trust travels with the research while the integrity of the scientific record is protected.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Anna.