Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329949›Full record

ArticleArchives of physiotherapy

Using AI to enhance scientific discourse by transforming journals into learning communities.

Michael Rowe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of physiotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael RoweSchool of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln - UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1538-6052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of generative AI into scientific publishing presents both opportunities and risks for the research ecosystem. While AI could enhance knowledge creation and streamline research processes, it may also amplify existing problems within the system. In this viewpoint article, I suggest that generative AI is likely to reinforce harmful processes unless scientific journals and editors use these technologies to transform themselves into vibrant knowledge communities that facilitate meaningful discourse and collaborative learning. I describe how AI could support this transformation by surfacing connections between researchers' work, making peer review more dialogic, enhancing post-publication discourse, and enabling multimodal knowledge translation. However, implementing this vision faces significant challenges, deeply rooted in the entrenched incentives of the current academic publishing system. Universities evaluate faculty based largely on publication counts, funding bodies rely on traditional metrics for grant decisions, and publishers benefit from maintaining existing models. Making meaningful change, therefore, requires coordinated action across multiple stakeholders who must be willing to accept short-term costs for long-term systemic benefits. The key to success lies in consistently returning to journals' core purpose: advancing scientific knowledge through thoughtful research and professional dialogue. By reimagining journals as AI-supported communities rather than metrics-driven repositories, we can better serve both the scientific community and the broader society it aims to benefit.

Indexed as

EditorGenerative AIJournalResearch Industrial complexScientific publication

Identifiers

PMID40329949
PMCPMC12051907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.