ArticleCureus2026
Speed, Innovation, and Trust: Guiding Scientific Publishing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.