I've spent twenty-five years inside academic publishing. I've sat in the rooms where licensing deals get negotiated. I've watched policies get drafted, debated, and quietly shelved. I've seen technology waves come and go — some transformative, most overhyped, a few genuinely dangerous.

None of them looked like this one.

What artificial intelligence is doing to scholarly publishing is not a single story. It's dozens of stories happening simultaneously, across every part of the ecosystem, at a pace that makes it nearly impossible for any one person to track. There are content licensing deals being struck between publishers and AI companies. There are AI policies being written and rewritten by publishers who aren't sure what they're regulating. There are paper mills using generative AI to produce fraudulent manuscripts at industrial scale. There are stock prices moving on earnings calls where "AI strategy" has become the phrase investors want to hear.

And there was no single place pulling all of it together.

That's why I built The Peer-to-Processor Review.

What this is

This site is an intelligence platform, not a blog. Yes, I write editorial commentary — you're reading some now — but the core of what we do is structured, daily monitoring of the data that matters. Our deal tracker logs every publicly announced AI licensing agreement and technology partnership in the industry. Our stock tracker follows the publicly traded companies with significant publishing operations. Our policy tracker maps publisher-by-publisher AI manuscript policies. Our university press hub monitors a sector that's navigating these changes with fewer resources and higher stakes than anyone else.

Think of it less like a newsletter and more like a Bloomberg Terminal for scholarly publishing's AI transformation — minus the $25,000 annual subscription.

Why the pseudonym

I write under the name Gutenberg. The reference is obvious, maybe even a little on the nose — but it felt right for a site about the collision between publishing's oldest traditions and its newest technology.

The anonymity is deliberate. I still work in this industry. The analysis here is sharper if you evaluate it on its merits rather than filtering it through whatever assumptions you might make about my employer, my title, or my professional incentives. The data is the data. The commentary is informed by experience, not by a brand.

What comes next

The site will update daily. Our automated monitoring agents scan a dozen industry sources every six hours, filtering for AI relevance and surfacing what matters. I'll add original commentary and analysis weekly — the kind of context that only comes from having been in the room.

If you work in scholarly publishing, academic libraries, university press operations, edtech, or AI companies looking at scholarly content — this site is for you. Subscribe to the weekly briefing and you'll never miss a development that matters.

Welcome to the review.

— Gutenberg