Editorial Message

Benefits of AI

Artificial intelligence plays a vital role in the publishing industry by enhancing both efficiency and creativity across various stages of content creation, distribution, and consumption. For non-native English speakers, AI can help overcome language barriers, especially in tasks like formatting research papers and translating content. This is particularly beneficial for academic writers, as AI tools assist in drafting, editing, and improving papers, ensuring they meet high-quality standards.

AI-powered writing tools, such as OpenAI’s GPT models, are increasingly used to generate drafts, refine content, or even produce entire articles. These tools also help editors by checking grammar, spelling, and punctuation, ensuring that the final output is polished. In addition, journals can leverage AI to optimize the visibility of articles, improving search-ability and visibility. Librarians can also benefit from AI by using it to structure content, summarize findings, and provide recommendations based on user queries. This enables more efficient organization and retrieval of information. Importantly, AI is not about replacing tasks in the publishing industry but reshaping them. It serves as a tool to enhance the work of professionals, allowing them to focus more on creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and reporting. Overall, AI offers immeasurable benefits, making processes smoother, faster, and more efficient across the publishing industry.¹

Publication ethics in the era of AI

While AI holds immense potential for innovation and efficiency in the publishing industry, it also presents significant challenges that must be addressed. Ethical, social, and economic concerns, such as bias, privacy violations, and accountability, are critical issues that require careful regulation and oversight.

One of the main ethical concerns in AI’s use in scientific publishing is its potential for misuse, which could undermine scientific integrity. AI tools, such as chatbots, can generate text, code, images, and even complete research articles. While these tools benefit researchers, editors, and publishers by improving productivity and streamlining tasks, they can also produce content that is inaccurate, outdated, or misleading, posing a threat to the quality of published work.²

Variation in how journals and publishers approach the use of AI in scientific writing

Some publishers strictly prohibit the use of AI without prior editorial approval, while others require authors to clearly annotate AI contributions in the manuscript. Some journals request that AI contributions be acknowledged in the manuscript’s acknowledgment section, while others prefer that they be included in the body of the text itself. The APA (American Psychological Association) recommend disclosing AI use in the method and introduction sections, while the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) advocate for disclosure in the methods section. Clear, unified guidelines on disclosure and citation are essential to addressing these concerns and fostering trust in AI-generated content.

The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) has provided several important recommendations regarding the use of AI in scholarly communication. These guidelines aim to ensure transparency, ethical standards, and accountability in academic publishing. Here are the key recommendations. Editors and publishers are encouraged to develop clear policies on the use of AI in publishing practices, including guidance on AI’s role in writing, editing, peer review, and data analysis.³

Authorship and contributorship

AI should not be listed as a co-author. According to the ICMJE guidelines, AI cannot be considered an author since it does not meet the criteria for authorship, such as providing substantial intellectual contributions to the research.

Citation and literature review

AI outputs should not be cited as primary sources. Since AI-generated content can sometimes be inaccurate or fabricated, authors must verify all information before citing it. Authors retain full responsibility for the information they provide in their work.

Data collection, cleaning, and interpretation: Any use of AI for data collection, analysis, or interpretation should be disclosed in the methods or disclosure section of the manuscript to ensure transparency about AI’s role in the research process.

Data and code generation: Disclosure is strongly recommended for the use of AI in data generation or code creation. This information should be clearly stated in the methods section to ensure the research is reproducible and that the role of AI is transparent.

Visualization (Tables, Figures, Images, Videos)

If AI is used to create visualizations such as tables, figures, images, or videos, this should also be disclosed in the methods section. Additionally, extra checks should be in place to ensure the validity and reproducibility of AI-generated visual content.

Writing and Editing Language/Style: When using AI for writing or language/style editing, authors should specify how and where they used AI in the manuscript. Some journals may allow disclosure in the acknowledgment section, while others may prefer it in the disclosure section. However, it can be difficult to differentiate between the use of AI in generating the initial draft and using it for editing, which is why journals should clarify their policies.

Peer review process

Journals must clarify their stance on whether reviewers can use AI tools during the peer review process. Issues such as bias, confidentiality, and the effectiveness of AI in decision-making raise concerns, so many journals are currently prohibiting the use of AI tools in peer review to avoid compromising the integrity of the review process.

Editorial work

AI use within the editorial office should be disclosed on the journal’s website and in communications with authors and reviewers. This ensures transparency about AI’s role in editorial processes and upholds the ethical standards of the publication.

These recommendations emphasize the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical consideration in the use of AI across various stages of scholarly communication. As AI becomes more integrated into publishing, clear policies and disclosure practices will be essential in maintaining trust in academic research and preserving the integrity of the scholarly process.

The January 2024 update from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) brings important revision to the use of AI in the review and writing processes.⁴

Use of AI

If authors use AI technology in conducting the study, they must provide detailed descriptions of how the AI was used in the methods section. This ensures that the approach is replicable by other researchers. Reviewers must request permission from the journal before using AI tools to assist with the review process. This guideline emphasizes the need for transparency and control in the peer-review process, ensuring that AI is used appropriately and that it does not undermine the integrity of the review.

Google analytics

Google Analytics results show that from January through December 2024, more than 70,000 people worldwide visited our website, 124% increase from the last year. Among the top six countries from which the sessions originated, the United States, Saudi Arabia, India, the United Kingdom, Singapore, China, and Turkey had the greatest number of sessions. Notably, this finding is consistent with our insights from last year.⁵

Statistics

As of 2024, we had an average rejection rate of 54%, from which 25% were rejected at the initial decision (Figure 1). Various reasons were given for author rejections, including papers outside of the journal’s scope, papers of low scientific quality, papers that did not meet the journal’s requirements, the failure of authors to submit necessary revisions and other requirements, and duplicate publications. The journal published four issues in 2024, with a total of 46 articles, which included 28 original articles, one editorial, 3 reviews, 2 case reports, 6 correspondences, 5 brief reports, and one Systematic review. Approximately 4.29 months are taken on average for submissions to be accepted, 1.8 months are taken on average for acceptance to be published, and 6.1 months are taken on average to publish. Articles from Saudi Arabia comprised 64%, Turkey 11.4%, China and Tunisia 9% of the published articles, while the remaining articles came from, Kuwait, and Canada.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

- Type of manuscripts received for the year 2024.

Gratitude

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers, advisory boards, and editorial boards for their insightful feedback, useful suggestions, and volunteer efforts to maintain the journal’s high standards. We would also like to express our gratitude to current and former staff members for their dedication and to our editors for their enthusiasm in promoting the journal locally and internationally.

We also wish to thank the following reviewers who participated in the review of manuscripts in 2024 and have contributed to the journal’s success.