Science Cultivation

Science Cultivation

The Future of Scientific Publishing Through the Eyes of Journal Editors

Document Type : Promotion Article

Authors
Narjes Vara
Mohammad Reza Ghane
Islamic World Science & Technology Monitoring and Citation Institute, Shiraz , IRAN
Abstract
Scholarly publishing, as a central mechanism for producing, validating, and disseminating knowledge, has faced structural, technological, and ethical transformations. The rising number of submissions, pressure on peer review, need for visibility, financial concerns, and expanding use of artificial intelligence have moved editors beyond management toward scientific policy-making, ethical oversight, and technology governance. The study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach. The research population consisted of editors-in-chief, managing editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and active researchers involved in reputable scientific journals in the country.

Data were collected through a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Of 110 questionnaires, 60 complete responses were analyzed. Findings showed that financial challenges were the concern in journal sustainability, followed by content quality, human resources, technical infrastructure, and policy-making. For improving citation impact and visibility, targeted indexing was the most effective strategy, followed by scientific and media marketing, internationalizing editorial boards, peer-review quality improvement, and open access policies. The main artificial intelligence concerns were plagiarism, lack of user skills, and declining scientific quality. Future editors were viewed as scientific policy-makers, ethical supervisors, and artificial intelligence monitors. Overall, improving scholarly journals requires an integrated approach focused on resources, human capacity, infrastructure, visibility, and responsible artificial intelligence policies.
Keywords: Scholarly publishing, journal editors, journal sustainability, scientific visibility, artificial intelligence, publication ethics
Keywords
Scholarly publishing
journal editors
journal sustainability
scientific visibility
artificial intelligence
publication ethics
[1]. Lira, R. P. C., Rocha, E. M., Kara-Junior, N., Costa, D. C., Procianoy, F., Paula, J. S., Gracitelli, C. P. B., Prata, T. D. S., Regatieri, C. V., Biccas Neto, L., & Alves, M. (2023). Editorial: Challenges and advantages of being a scientific journal editor in the era of ChatGPT. Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia, 86(3), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2023-1003
[2]. Yoo, J. H. (2025). Defining the boundaries of AI use in scientific writing: A comparative review of editorial policies. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 40(23), e187. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187
[3]. Jones, B., Jones, R., & Luger, E. (2022). AI ‘everywhere and nowhere’: Addressing the AI intelligibility problem in public service journalism. Digital Journalism, 10(10), 1731–1755. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2145328
[4]. صبوری، علی اکبر. (1405). فرصت‌ها و چالش‌های استفاده از هوش مصنوعی در نوشتن مقالات علمی. نشاء علم. ()،e735513 .
[5]. Rosenberg, A., Walker, J., Griffiths, S., & Jenkins, R. (2023). Plain language summaries: Enabling increased diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing. Learned Publishing, 36(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1524
[6]. منتظری، حسام؛ غفاری، احمدرضا و موسوی موحدی، علی اکبر. (1402). کاربردهای چت جی پی تی در تحقیقات علمی و ملاحظات اخلاقی استفاده از آن. نشاء علم. 13(2)، 148-156.
[7]. Flanagin, A., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Berkwits, M., & Christiansen, S. L. (2023). Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA, 329(8), 637–639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.1344
[8]. Wahyudi, M. N. A., Saputro, I. N., Ula, A. N., & Widodo, C. (2025). Key trends, challenges, and opportunities in scientific journal management between 2013 and 2023: A systematic review. Science Editing, 12(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.359
[9]. Rowe, M. (2025, January). Publishing with purpose: Using AI to enhance scientific discourse. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/d7hwf_v1
[10]. Phuljhele, S. (2024). Reviewer fatigue is real. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 72(Suppl. 5), S719–S720. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2465_24
[11]. Galian, C. V. A., de Pietri, E., & Prieto, R. G. (2019). As transformações nos modos de edição, publicação e avaliação de periódicos científicos: Impactos para a gestão dos processos editoriais. Educação e Pesquisa, 45. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-970220194501001
[12]. Bradić-Martinović, A. (2025). Generative AI in scientific publishing – Opportunities and challenges. Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.31410/ai.smart.2025.135
[13]. Schmitz, B. (2023). Improving accessibility of scientific research by artificial intelligence: An example for lay abstract generation. Digital Health, 9, 20552076231186245. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231186245
[14]. Siddique, M. K. B., Rahim, S. A., Rahman, M. M., Lasker, S. P., & Rahim, M. M. U. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence in journal editing: Expanding horizons for scholarly publications: A mixed method study. Health Sciences Quarterly, 5(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.26900/hsq.2674
[15]. Frangou, S., Volpe, U., & Fiorillo, A. (2025). AI in scientific writing and publishing: A call for critical engagement. European Psychiatry, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10061
[16]. Atkinson, S. (2025, July). Navigating the AI frontiers in academic publishing. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 29(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.61468/jofdl.v29i1.733
[17]. Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics-based auditing to develop trustworthy AI. Minds and Machines, 31(2), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09557-8
[18]. Lund, B., Lamba, M., & Oh, S. (2024, June). The impact of AI on academic research and publishing. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.06009
[19]. Chauhan, C., & Currie, G. (2024). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on the external review of scientific manuscripts and editorial peer review processes. The American Journal of Pathology, 194(10), 1802–1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2024.08.002
[20]. Mrowinski, M. J., Fronczak, P., Fronczak, A., Ausloos, M., & Nedic, O. (2017). Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors? PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184711
[21]. مؤسسه استنادی و پایش علم و فناوری جهان اسلام. (1403). آمار نشریات ایرانی نمایه‌شده در پایگاه بین‌المللی اسکوپوسhttps://isc.ac/fa/grid/146/
[22] عرفان منش,محمدامین و نوجوان,فرشته . (1395). میزان رؤیت و جایگاه بین‌المللی مجله‌های ایرانی نمایه‌شده در پایگاه گزارش استنادی نشریات. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات. 32(1): 51-73. doi: 10.35050/JIPM010.2016.019
 
[23] Majhi, S., Sahu, L., & Behera, K. (2023). Practices for enhancing research visibility, citations and impact: Review of literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 75(6), 1280–1305. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2023-532
[24] Pulizzi, J. (2012). The rise of storytelling as the new marketing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 28, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-012-9264-5
[25] Smith, M. J., Weinberger, C., Bruna, E. M., & Allesina, S. (2014). The scientific impact of nations: Journal placement and citation performance. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109195
[26] Zarif, A. (2023). The economics of scientific publishing. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 96(2), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.59249/OMSP9618
[27] Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, & World Association of Medical Editors. (2022). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12
 
 

  • Receive Date 04 June 2026
  • Revise Date 11 June 2026
  • Accept Date 18 June 2026