The current research landscape in scholarly publishing and scientometrics is witnessing significant shifts towards more equitable and objective evaluation methods. There is a growing emphasis on mitigating biases such as the Matthew effect in citations, where prestige often overshadows the actual scientific merit of publications. Innovative approaches are being developed to predict citations based on pre-publication variables, thereby reducing the influence of author and journal prestige. This trend is particularly important for funding agencies aiming to support high-quality scientific content. Additionally, the rise of open access publishing is driving a divergence in European academic publishing practices, with new open access journals challenging traditional models by offering faster review times and broader accessibility. This shift is influencing strategic publishing decisions at both national and institutional levels, with implications for research accessibility and collaboration across Europe. Furthermore, the study of gender inequalities in content collaborations highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of digital biases, emphasizing how genre and affordances moderate gendered collaboration. These developments collectively underscore the importance of considering sociocultural contexts in scientific communication and the need for tailored practices and policies that cater to diverse scholarly journal landscapes.