Scientific publishing is changing - and it's changing fast. Digital platforms have made it easier than ever to share research across borders, open-access models have pulled down paywalls that once limited who could read or contribute to scientific discourse, and global collaboration has become the norm rather than the exception. Into this already shifting landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) has arrived - quietly at first, and now with considerable force - touching nearly every stage of how research gets done, analyzed, and communicated. The promise here is real. But so is the tension it creates. The central question facing the scientific community isn't whether to embrace these changes - that ship has largely sailed - but whether we can move this quickly without eroding the credibility that makes science worth doing in the first place. For journals, this isn't a theoretical problem. Editorial standards are the backbone of the scientific record, and right now, those standards are being stress-tested. As the Editor-in-Chief of Cureus, I think we're at a moment that calls for clarity, not hedging - a moment to say plainly what principles must hold even as everything else shifts. Cureus was built around a straightforward idea that medical publishing was too slow, too exclusive, and too gatekept to serve science well. The journal set out to change that by reducing barriers to dissemination while keeping editorial rigor intact. That core mission hasn't changed. What has changed is the environment in which we pursue it. Two issues now sit at the center of that effort: the responsible use of AI in scholarly communication and the ongoing fight to protect research integrity.
Alexander Muacevic (2026) studied this question.