When strategic planning is part of your day job, you spend a fair bit of time contemplating the future. For me, two quotes play an outsized role in how I think about what futurists describe as strategic foresight. The one attributed to William Gibson (“The future is here. It’s just not very evenly distributed yet.”) is the first. It says to me that there are signals to read. Signs to follow. And, sure, it’s tricky to distinguish what’s genuinely a signal and what’s noise, but rarely does the future come out of nowhere. 

The second one is from a guy who isn’t exactly famed for his intellectual contributions to the world. Yogi Berra was an American baseball player in the 1940s and 1950s, generally considered one of the greatest catchers in baseball history. He became famous for what’s been called “Yogi-isms,” accidentally philosophical quotes that dispense wisdom through contradictions. The one that’s always stuck with me was “I never make predictions, especially about the future.” 

Those two sentiments, that you can read the future in the signals of the present and that the future is ultimately unpredictable, have informed my approach to strategy development for over a decade, and they combine to create in me a love of scenario planning. 

Scenario Planning as a Strategic Tool 

In case you don’t use it, a quick word on scenario planning: it’s a powerful framework for navigating uncertainty. Unlike forecasting, which attempts to predict the most likely future, scenario planning acknowledges that multiple distinct futures are possible. It focuses on identifying the key dimensions of change that will shape our environment, then systematically exploring what happens when these dimensions interact. 

For scientific publishing—a field experiencing unprecedented disruption—scenario planning offers a way to move beyond reactive thinking toward intentional transformation.  

Dimensions Explored 

I’ve always been taught that the most important part of scenario planning is choosing the right dimensions. I was involved in a strategic planning project a few years ago that started with 16 different possible dimensions (e.g., publishing would become more or less open, content consumption would become more or less voice-activated, and the economics of publishing would become increasingly centralized vs. decentralized, etc.) before we narrowed ourselves down to the two that we thought mattered most.  

In an ideal world, a bunch of us would have gotten together to thrash through how to think about some of the most fundamental drivers shaping the future of scientific publishing. (If anyone’s up for that, let me know!) In the absence of that, though, I chose two dimensions that consistently emerge in discussions across the publishing and research communities. 

Dimension 1: Scientific Competitiveness vs. Collaboration. This dimension explores the spectrum between research as a primarily competitive endeavor compared with one that is fundamentally collaborative. At one extreme, researchers compete fiercely for priority and prestige. At the other, science operates as a collective enterprise with shared goals. You’ll hear the work that happened around data and information sharing during the early days of the COVID pandemic, when scientists were racing to find out everything they could as quickly as possible, described as the example of global scientific collaboration done well. The race for quantum supremacy, on the other hand? That’s where you see research competitiveness on display. 

Dimension 2: Information Accessibility vs. Restriction. This dimension spans from universal, immediate access to scientific knowledge to carefully controlled access. It encompasses not just business models but fundamental questions about who can participate in scientific advancement. Open access content delivered in accessible and inclusive ways on one hand. Restricted-access content in constrained formats (why do so many people love the .pdf?) on the other.  

These dimensions represent fundamental tensions in how we organize knowledge production and touch on the values, economics, and governance approaches that define scientific publishing. 

Trends Shaping the Future 

We’re already seeing trends that are shaping what scientific publishing will look like in 2050. What makes scenario planning so valuable is that these trends can go off in any number of directions.  

Take AI and machine learning, for example. They’re transforming publishing and research workflows. By 2050, AI is likely to be a true research partner—not just analyzing data but suggesting novel hypotheses and identifying connections between fields. Or not. Trust in AI and the data that underlies it is critical. For AI to reshape research and publishing the way many of us think it could, making sure that AI is trained on comprehensive, validated data becomes hugely important. 

New research methods are creating much more data than we’ve seen before. Technologies like high-throughput screening and computer modeling create datasets that are just too big for traditional analysis. By 2050, the main scientific output might not be papers at all, but continuously updated knowledge networks linking ideas, methods, data, and conclusions. Or the conventions of the academic rewards system will trump technology advances and papers published will continue to be a primary goal of many academic researchers.  

Publishing’s impact on the environment is becoming better understood. Government regulation is increasingly impacting the publishing industry. The EU Deforestation Act, for instance, will require publishers to operate a more sustainable value chain. In parallel, publishers are increasingly voluntarily adopting environmental action pledges, like commitments to developing a carbon net-zero publishing operation within certain timeframes.  

Global participation in science continues to grow, with research capacity developing in previously underrepresented regions. This expansion creates both opportunities and tensions. By 2050, we could see either a more equitable global scientific community or increasingly fragmented approaches, depending on how we navigate these tensions. 

We see the trends clearly. We just also see the divergent paths. 

Here’s one: the ownership of knowledge infrastructure will become an important conversation. Currently, much of the digital infrastructure for scientific knowledge is managed by a mix of commercial companies, non-profits, and academic institutions. By 2050, we could see new models where commercial innovation and public accessibility find better balance through creative collaborations. Alternatively, we could see extreme commercialization, complete state control, or a continued mixed environment.  

Not even a year ago, it felt like funding models for science were pretty predictable. We didn’t see the multi-year government budget commitments at the level we could have, but you generally knew what was coming. I live in the US, which has historically been a driver of global scientific output, and now the research funding landscape is hugely uncertain.  

Information security concerns may intensify as scientific knowledge becomes more directly linked to economic and geopolitical advantage. By 2050, we may see divergence between countries (or disciplines) in their publishing norms, with some operating in more restricted networks while others maintain open science principles. 

In the context of this unpredictability, the role of scientific publishing in society could transform in a range of different ways. Scientific publishing may evolve from documenting completed research to more actively connecting findings with policy options and professional implementation tools. The boundaries between scientific and public communication could blur, redefining who participates in scientific discourse. Scientific publishing’s role in academic assessment could evolve to also recognize collaborative success and contributions to shared resources. 

Given the range of potential future outcomes, a structured approach to defining plausible scenarios and developing strategies that are robust across those scenarios becomes a valuable planning tool.  

The Scenarios 

Taking our two dimensions and crossing them creates four distinct scenarios for scientific publishing in 2050: 

Scenario 1: “Merit Marketplace” (Competitive + Accessible) 

An open system where the best ideas rise to the top based on merit, not on who controls access to knowledge. Science remains competitive, but everyone can participate and verify results. 

Scientists work with AI assistants that augment their individual capabilities while maintaining their distinctive styles. Personalized recommendation algorithms help researchers discover relevant content, while just-in-time systems create custom research briefings connecting new findings to existing knowledge. Researchers are rewarded through attention markets when their work is accessed, cited, or verified. 

Scenario 2: “Knowledge Guilds” (Competitive + Closed) 

A world where powerful research groups control valuable scientific knowledge and restrict who can access it. Well-funded programs thrive, but ideas don’t flow freely between institutions. 

Elite research teams use proprietary AI systems trained on exclusive data to accelerate discovery. Privileged search systems grant subscribers access to findings unavailable through public channels. Digital rights management constrains how content can be used, with tiered subscription models determining access based on resources available. 

Scenario 3: “Global Commons” (Collaborative + Accessible) 

A scientific community where everyone works together and shares all knowledge openly. Researchers worldwide build on each other’s work without barriers, focusing on solving problems together rather than individual credit. 

Distributed teams form around emerging questions, with AI-driven matchmaking connecting complementary expertise. Open knowledge networks map relationships between concepts across the entire scientific corpus. Global scientific commons ensure baseline access to all published findings, and researchers are recognized and rewarded for many different types of contributions to scientific progress, not just for publishing original papers. 

Scenario 4: “Mission Networks” (Collaborative + Closed) 

Networks of researchers work closely together on specific goals but share findings only within their groups. Teams cooperate internally while keeping their advantages over outside groups. 

Consortium platforms enable seamless collaboration across member institutions while maintaining collective ownership. Federated search enables comprehensive discovery within consortium boundaries, with secure environments for confidential sharing. Membership models fund collective infrastructure, with tiered participation structures offering different rights based on contribution levels. 

An Argument for Collaborative, Accessible Systems  

If I could choose the future, I’d pick the collaborative, accessible scenario (“Global Commons”). It’s certainly not inevitable, but I think it offers the most promising response to the complex challenges facing science and society today. 

We hardly have an easy future ahead of us. So, by 2050, we need a scientific publishing system that allows researchers to celebrate individual achievement and work together effectively, while making scientific knowledge available and accessible to everyone. Here are a few reasons: 

Complex global challenges require collaborative solutions. Our most pressing problems—climate change, food and water scarcity, biodiversity loss, AI ethics and technology governance—cross disciplines, borders, and institutions. No single lab or country can solve them alone. The collaborative, accessible model breaks down barriers by design. With this as a core principle, though, operating scientific publishing in a way that is sustainable by design—committing to net-zero publishing, eliminating the risk of deforestation from the publishing value chain, finding energy and water efficient paths to AI use—becomes a strategic imperative. The Royal Meteorological Society’s net zero commitment is a good example of a positive move in this direction.  

Innovation lives at intersections. Many breakthrough discoveries emerge at the boundaries between disciplines. As specialization increases, we need stronger connective tissue between domains. An open, collaborative ecosystem creates these connections naturally. 

Distributed verification strengthens science. As research volumes grow exponentially, traditional peer review struggles. When findings, data, and methods are openly available, we can all channel our best Linus Torvalds—more eyes can scrutinize results, and more hands can attempt replication. 

Economic sustainability invites creative thinking. The economics of publishing are changing as digital transformation continues. We need fresh thinking about sustainable models that work for all stakeholders. Public-private partnerships, innovative subscription and open access models, and new compensation systems can create healthier funding flows while expanding knowledge access.  

Global talent requires global access. Brilliant minds are everywhere. Universal access to scientific knowledge isn’t just a moral imperative. It’s a practical necessity for maximizing our collective problem-solving capacity. 

Technology creates new possibilities. The development of AI, knowledge networks, and collaborative platforms is changing what’s possible in scientific communication. As AI grows more important in research, working with comprehensive information gives better results than using fragmented data. 

I’d argue that the collaborative, accessible model doesn’t require sacrificing traditional scientific publishing values. It offers a framework for preserving and enhancing those values while adapting to the changing technological and social landscape. 

This future won’t emerge on its own. It requires deliberate choices at multiple levels, from individual researchers to global institutions. We need new norms, technologies, policies, and economic models that align incentives around openness and collaboration. 

And of course, Gibson’s right: the future is already here—just unevenly distributed. Elements of this collaborative, accessible future already exist in pockets throughout the scientific enterprise. Our opportunity is to nurture those elements, connect them into coherent systems, and extend their reach. 

Also, Yogi Berra is right, and, because of that, we need to approach this work with humility. We can’t know exactly how scientific publishing will evolve by 2050. But we can articulate the future we want to build and take concrete steps toward realizing it. The choices we make today will shape the landscape of scientific knowledge for generations to come. 

AI Acknowledgements 

This article was developed with assistance from Claude, an AI assistant from Anthropic. The AI helped with structuring arguments, refining language, and exploring scenario implications while maintaining the author’s original thinking, voice, and perspective. 

 
About the Author 

Bill Deluise is CVP, Communications and Corporate Impact at Wiley, where he works to help people get to know Wiley, attract and retain top talent and collaborators, and accelerate socially responsible business performance. With 25 years of experience at Wiley in multiple leadership roles, Bill focuses on responsible AI, sustainability in publishing, information integrity, and advancing inclusion and belonging in the publishing industry. 

The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily represent the official position of Wiley.