On November 30, 2022, ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) was released as an artificial intelligence (AI) model that interacts with the user in a conversational way [1]. The author tested ChatGPT with the question, “What are the recent issues in medical journal publishing and editing policies?” The answers from ChatGPT were as follows:

Two hours later, the author received a different answer to the same question from ChatGPT (Fig. 1):

The author was surprised to see that some of the issues raised by ChatGPT were the same as those proposed by the author in this review article, such as “peer review”. The second set of topics suggested by ChatGPT, from 1 to 5, were also all included in the Best Practice guidelines. Although the answers provided were general and may require more specialized knowledge, they are reasonable as readily available answers to a query.

In addition to ChatGPT, AI programs are already starting to influence writing itself. In 2019, Springer Cham published an AI-written book called Lithium-Ion Batteries: A Machine-Generated Summary of Current Research [2]. Many AI tools are being introduced to help editors, including for manuscript editing, plagiarism detection, peer review, and statistical quality assessment [3]. Most publishers of medical journal already use similarity checks provided by Crossref and the e-submission system. However, the author does not have sufficient experience with peer review or statistical review using AI. Neverthless, there may be more powerful tools available to assist editors and reviewers.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the policy on preprints has been a particularly important issue. A preprint is a version of a scholarly manuscript that is made available online prior to formal peer review and publication in a journal or conference proceedings. It allows authors to share their work with others in their field and receive feedback before it is officially published. Preprints are often posted on preprint servers, which are online repositories designed specifically for this purpose [4]. Traditionally, the medical community has not supported preprints on the arXiv platform because they have not undergone peer review. arXiv is a preprint repository for physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, and quantitative finance [5]. A preprint is also equipped with a digital object identifier (DOI). When any preprint is published as an article in a scholarly journal, it also receives a new DOI from the journal. The published article can be continuously linked to the preprint through the DOI of the preprint version [5]. Many editors believed that the circulation of non-peer-reviewed manuscripts could potentially harm patient care. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed this perspective. The number of preprints on arXiv has increased significantly since 2020, particularly in the field of quantitative biology research related to COVID-19 [6]. The number of preprints on medRxiv also increased from 788 in 2019 to 13,310 in 2020, 1,918 in 2021, and 11,061 in 2022 [7]. Preprints have begun to be cited by the media before they are published in scholarly journals, and many medical journals have started to accept preprints. eLife (https://elifesciences.org/)—an initiative and open-access journal created by funders and led by researchers to transform research communication through improvements in science publishing, technology and research culture—has even made it a requirement to publish a preprint before submission since 2021 [8]. In line with this trend, many medical journals in Korea have also announced their policies on preprints, including whether they accept preprint submissions and allow authors to cite preprints. Editors may also invite preprints to be submitted to their journals.

The traditional understanding of open peer review has been that the identity of authors and reviewers is revealed during or after peer review. However, a broader definition has been proposed by F1000Research [9]. F1000 Research (https://f1000research.com/) provides a publishing platform for researchers to publish their articles rapidly and make them available to readers immediately after publication. The articles submitted to the F1000 Research are peer-reviewed, and the reviews and decision letters are published with the articles. Although this definition is not widely accepted in F1000Research, it is worth mentioning:

Of the 7 characteristics mentioned, the first three items have been widely accepted. eLife announced on October 20, 2022 that it would abandon its role as a gatekeeper and publish all peer-reviewed manuscripts with reviewer comments [7]. This announcement means that readers can determine the value of each manuscript for themselves by reading the main text and the reviewers’ comments. This is one of the most extreme open peer review policies. The value of each study may vary from 0% to 100% for different readers and in different scientific fields. Even studies of low value may be worthwhile to some readers if they are scientifically sound. It is up to the editor or publisher to decide whether to use open peer review or the mandatory publication of reviewer comments. In the future, eLife’s new peer review policy could be considered as a way to disseminate medical information more rapidly and transparently.

In May 2022, a model text recycling policy was proposed after a four-year large-scale research project on text recycling sponsored by the United States National Research Foundation. Text recycling is defined as the “reuse of textual material (prose, visuals, or equations) in a new document where (1) the material in the new document is identical to that of the source (or substantially equivalent in both form and content); (2) the material is not presented in the new document as a quotation (via quotation marks or block indentation); and (3) at least one author of the new document is also an author of the prior document” [10]. This project suggested that the background of the Introduction section and the Methods section can be recycled in a reasonable amount. For example, the methods used in a laboratory are often consistent, so the description of the Methods section may be almost identical to those in previous articles and does not need to be paraphrased. Some publishers may also accept limited recycling of discussion of previous relevant research. This recommendation helps researchers and editors in writing and reviewing manuscripts. It is important to distinguish text recycling from duplicate publication [11]. The project found that many editors accepted text recycling in a limited way, particularly in the Methods section. Some editors also already exclude the Methods section when using a plagiarism screening program. The consensus on text recycling that emerged from this project may provide a sense of comfort to researchers and editors.

The Best Practice guidelines were updated (4th version) on September 15, 2022 [12]. These guidelines have been continuously revised since their first release in 2013. The 4th version is largely similar to the 3rd version, which was released on January 15, 2018. The 4th version categorizes 16 items into four categories: journal content (6 items), journal practices (3 items), organizations (3 items), and business practices (4 items). The most notable difference is the emphasis on accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity. Specific changes in the 4th version are listed in Table 1.

The changes or new items in the Best Practice guidelines are not difficult to describe. The 4th version provides a more detailed explanation of some items for adherence to the guidelines. Therefore, it is sufficient for editors to simply state that the journal’s policies follow the recommendations in the Best Practice guidelines.

Knipe and Jewkes [13] recommended that the name of the country should be included in the title of studies involving human subjects, particularly in case series or case reports. However, not all studies involving human populations published in most medical journals include the country name in the title. Cultural background is an important aspect of medical knowledge, and even though many articles come from a single country, it would be beneficial to include the country name in the title. This may encourage readers to read articles from their own countries more closely, although there is no concrete evidence to support this. Knipe and Jewkes [13] also recommended that “when previously conducted studies are reported, authors should highlight the context in which the studies originate.” This comment is constructive. Including the name of country when citing other studies can help readers understand points of comparison based on the country.