Scientific publishing was relatively straightforward in the past. Scientific journals, often owned and managed by learned-societies and research organizations, used the expertise within their community to publish peer-reviewed articles. Publication costs were supported by subscriptions or a combination of subscriptions and page charges. Peer-review was perceived as the “gold standard of quality”. Peer-review serves to weed out low-quality research, but sometimes stringent peer-review standards results in work not being published, simply because authors could not find a journal that would accept their sound, but perhaps little-less-novel research. This has changed considerably in the last decade with Open Access publishing. The number of publications in peer-review journals in animal science has doubled in just five years (Journal Citation Report, Clarivate). Open Access, combined with the increase in the number of publications, has also resulted in a shift in responsibility from the journals to the reader. Virtually any author with funding can now find a journal willing to publish their research results. But how serious do journals take their peer-review process if they can promise a very rapid time-to-first decision? Of course, we all like to see that our papers published rapidly and without hassle, but is this really what we want from the journals that we own and manage? The future of animal science publishing has many uncertainties but, as an animal science community, we can certainly shape it. Should peer-review remain the standard to assess “quality and novelty” or should we, as journals of learned societies, explore new publishing models? Trends in the publishing environment include open peer-review and post-print feedback. How do you see your future as an author and reader in the rapidly changing publishing landscape and what should the role of the journals of learned-societies be in this?