In the digital environment with its numerous new publication options and venues, the issue of the appropriate quality review of published scholarship and publication venue must also be revisited. Authors of publications are responsible for ensuring the quality of the underlying research process and documenting this transparently. At the same time, it is up to them to choose academically and qualitatively appropriate venues for the publication of their research findings: this ensures that the fundamental procedures for high-quality, re-usable publication are adhered to and conveyed in a transparent manner. In this way, authors have the legally binding assurance that published content can be used in full in digital working environments.

Academic publishing takes place at different stages of the academic process, ranging from initial and consolidated results to final, stable outcomes. The target groups of academic publications cover a broad spectrum, from narrowly defined specialist groups to the entire academic community and indeed the public at large. For this reason, it is essential that the relevant target group is specifically addressed in each case in terms of format, text type, publication channel and readability of content. Meanwhile, aspects such as impact and reputation should not be the primary factors guiding the choice of publication venue.

A narrow focus in the system of attributing academic reputation – for example based on bibliometric indicators – not only has a detrimental effect on publication behaviour, it also fails to do justice to scholarship in all its diversity. Academic reputation is based not just on a broad range of publication types: it also includes contributions to the academic community and broader public interest, as well as the assumption of responsibility and taking on tasks such as coordination and management. These differing aspects should also be appropriately recognised as part of assessment procedures.

In many instances, the current publication system favours the diverse findings and results of scholarship being produced by academics but then placed in the hands of commercial providers for the purpose of publication. Here, it is important for scholarship to establish autonomous control over its own publications and the relevant use traces, making data collection more transparent or organising the process itself so as to avoid dependencies. Otherwise such dependencies are bound to be reflected in the context of assessment when the products of commercial providers are used.

In terms of publication formats, it is crucial for a good match to be achieved between the content to be conveyed and the target group. Responsible scholarship assessment should provide support here by explicitly accepting the entire spectrum of academic publications. At the same time, there should be no incentive for giving preference to certain publication formats or venues simply because they promise an advantage in terms of peer review or evaluation.

Responsible assessment of scholarship is based on the content of academic output. It is not derived from any standardised procedure for publishing academic findings, so it should deliberately refrain from setting any incentives to align academic activity and publication types with the assessment procedure.

Readers should be able to search for and find academic publications in an appropriate way and select them according to content-based criteria. However, the large-scale commercial search systems currently in use do not come close to reflecting the publication system in its entirety. For this reason, it is important to continue to support scholarship-driven activities that seek to develop services for specialist research, make academic information available and develop the infrastructures required for this purpose.