The article is an overview of the shift from "conventional" modes of print publishing characterised by closed-door peer-review process, limited revisions of published work, restricted modes of collaborative authorship towards a more "dynamic" publication workflow and system afforded by digital platforms and tools that allow revisiting of what it means to write and to publish. The article raises questions we should think about when we make these shifts. What does it mean to write academically when the audience is potentially limitless and digital tools could allow comments from beyond academia? How does the text and the logics of collaborating transform when new tools afford archiving revisions and comments by peers and beyond? The article also provides themes to think with while making these shifts: how would quality be assured? what would quality mean? how does it transform the "linear" mode of scientific knowledge production and how would humanities and social science scholarship in particular be affected? how would authors revise and edit texts together and would revisions count as "original" scholarship?
