Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Art & Psychiatry
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Cosmetic Dermatology
Current Best Evidence
Current Issue
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
Editor Speaks
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Miscellaneous Letter
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News & Views
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Original Article
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Review Article
Review Articles
Reviewers 2022
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Study Letter
Study Letters
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Therapeutic Guideline-IADVL
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapy Letter
Therapy Letters
View Point
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

88 (
); 279-281

Technological innovations in scientific journals: the shape of things to come

Editor-in-Chief, IJDVL
Corresponding author: Saumya Panda, Consultant Dermatologist, Belle Vue Clinic, Kolkata, Kolkata, 700028, West Bengal, India,
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Panda S. Technological innovations in scientific journals: the shape of things to come. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2022;88:279-81.

One of the things that we introduced since I took over as the editor of IJDVL was an eponymous scientific session in the DERMACON, the national conference of IADVL. It is conceived as a scientific session with discussions and presentations encompassing journalology, not only limited to the journal itself. This year, we had a panel discussion on the future of dermatology journals in India. The eminent panelists included the three immediate past editors of IJDVL and the current editor of the Indian Journal of Dermatology (IJD ). An aspect that was stressed upon during the freewheeling discussion was the need to embrace emerging technologies in journal publishing, even if it meant getting out of the traditional format of journals, whenever needed. It was suggested that the predominantly visual aspect of our discipline can be made use of in bringing science alive, something that would never be possible within the confines of the traditional journals.

This set me thinking on the problematic of harnessing technology in journal publishing. There is no doubt about the need to utilize technological advances in our journals. However, technology per se is too vast for uncritical adoption. Some technologies may be beyond our reach for financial and logistic reasons and we have to be careful about the deleterious effects of some of them.


Scholarly communication is in a state of rapid change. It is in a liminal space of what was and what is there to be, a space of waiting and not knowing what exactly is in store. As a commentator has put it: ‘We are leaving our traditional, print-based, subscription-based past behind and moving toward a digital future of openness, transparency, access and reuse.’1

One movement that is a corollary to open access is to facilitate technology for having an open infrastructure for metadata. One example is DataCite, which is a global not-for-profit membership organization that provides open infrastructure to identify, find, cite, connect and use research. It is quite similar to other open infrastructure research organizations like are CrossRef, ORCID etc. Where it differs from the latter is in its focus beyond published articles to include all the underlying information that is available, as well as a mechanism to easily link to the experimental design, the research data and the analytical tools that were used to generate the reported outcomes.2

Microsoft Word has developed new accessibility tools that can generate alternative texts (alt-text) for images and photographs. So, one need not only see images. One who cannot see them can hear them now, for example, someone using a screen reader or some such screen-to-text applications.

Another area where machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are being sought to be employed is peer review, as the publishing world grapples with an increasing burden of submissions and a not-so-growing pool of peer reviewers.3 Some notable examples are: Statcheck,, UNSILO, StatReviewer, etc. Other than methodological controversies on reliability, there are several ethical concerns like alogorithmic bias, latent motivations, inscrutable evidence leading to opacity, misguided evidence leading to bias and transformative effects leading to challenges for autonomy.4

Among the other areas of AI applications in scholarly communications as related to research artefacts that are going to be important in future are: Advances in entity recognition systems and semantic search and publishing.5

An important question to debate is: How is the world of scholarly publishing going to be affected by Metaverse, the new tool being developed by Mark Zuckerberg? Predicting where a new tool will take us is a fool’s errand. Some consider the Metaverse as a new medium, comparable in some respects to audio or video or the networked worlds of Twitter or Pinterest.6 Every medium has its own properties and the point is to explore them. The moot point is: Can the Metaverse improve the number and quality of submissions to our journals, or is it going to be a purely commercial enterprise where social media plays a disruptive role for journals and creates a future hyperreality more problematic than the present reality?

Preprint servers, to which scholars and scientists can post preliminary reports of their research for public comment before submitting them for formal publication, are not intended to fill the same function as journals. While they are open to the public, submissions to preprint servers are presented not as established science for public consumption, but rather as tentative findings for open discussion, mainly among other experts in the field.7

A growing problem in the scholarly and scientific community is a population of opportunists who try to use preprint servers as a place to post pseudo-science and misleading public health information, or commercially exploitable data in case of the pharmaceutical or equipment industry, all under the garb of scholarly “publishing.” They submit articles to preprint servers in the hope of publicizing them, counting on both an uninformed public and an equally gullible press to treat the reports as if these were vetted and peer-reviewed science published in a medium that is willing to accept responsibility for them. Just as predatory publishers have recognized in the ‘article processing charge’ (APC) funding model an opportunity to lie and make money, dishonest authors and business interests have recognized in the preprint-dissemination model an opportunity to lie and achieve political or business goals (to the extent of causing large tweaks in the global share prices) or professional advancement.7

The problem with these new dissemination technologies that have sprouted during this pandemic era-social media dissemination exemplified by Meta and pre-print servers-are that these pander to the new age authors who would rather publish the day before finishing their work and care second to none about careful curating of data, that is the hallmark of old-school peer-reviewed journals, and give a short shrift to the accuracy of scientific truth.

All of this may result in a perpetuating infodemic (“an overabundance of information-some accurate and some not-occurring during an epidemic”8) that threatens to continue beyond the COVID-19. An unregulated outpouring of scientific information would combine an inordinately high volume of information (leading to problems relating to locating the information, storage capacity, ensuring quality, visibility and validity) and rapid output (making it hard to assess its value, manage the gatekeeping process, apply results, track its history, and leading to a waste of effort).8

One can indeed argue that the voices talking more and more volubly in favour of these new fast dissemination technologies in scientific communication, and consequently undermining traditional peer-review, despite the countless instances of being wrong footed during the ongoing pandemic, all attempt to gain their credence from philosophical discourses undermining the authority of “facts” and “objective truth.” The propositions that “reality” is whatever we all agree it is, that there is no such thing as historical fact, that “objectivity” is merely a pretence used by the powerful to defend their interests, and that the putative search for “truth” is really just a tool of oppression, have been significant currents of postmodern academic discourse for several decades. (Of course, you have Foucault asserting that “reason is the ultimate language of madness”; earlier than that, there’s Nietzsche: “The real truth about ‘objective truth’ is that objective truth is a myth.”)7

Another new dissemination model is Octopus, which represents new platforms where researchers would publish all steps of their research cycle and receive feedback from other registered users on a regular basis.

But, what with all these proliferations of new models, the “death of a journal” seems to be a myth—a recent Google Scholar search came up with only 23 documents; just three articles bear that phrase in their titles.9


In the design of digital products, increasingly sophisticated, user-centered techniques applied to scholarly communications platforms and services is being observed, by leveraging the toolkit of UX (user experience) methods (fig.1).10 As of now, these methods are employed as user-centric window dressing and are often limited to concerns with web interface design. The way these technologies are used reflect the publishing industry’s preference for product innovations that focus on high-value transactions with dominant groups. There have been some recent arguments to elevate the thinking beyond the reductionist confines of user methods to the more holistic and inclusive approach of information experience design.11 However, only future will tell whether these will be mere value additions in the face of onslaughts to barriered publications in the form of open access, which seems an inexorable movement at the moment. It is a moot point if we remember that the use of UX in scholarly communications largely came into focus when resistance movements like ‘Sci-Hub’ came into being to remove stumbling blocks on the information highway.

Fig. 1:: UX Design Elements (by WriterJS, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons) [Courtesy: Carpenter 2022]


As AI makes its foray into mainstream publishing, the ugly head of data mining rears. Data mining has become so widely prevalent that most of us have become resigned to the fact that privacy has long ago been sacrificed at the altar of a data-driven world.12


in a new twist to the age-old problem of academic fraud, modern plagiarists are making use of software and perhaps even emerging AI technologies to draft articles. A computer system, named Problematic Paper Screener, has been devised to screen out papers with ’tortured phrases’-the weird computer-generated phrases, with which plagiarists seek to outwit plagiarism checker software. This might be especially relevant to Indian journals, as apparently the country of affiliation of most authors employing such tactics are from India.13

A related area where AI software is already playing a critical role is in identification of image duplication. This promises to be a standard editorial equipment in future, particularly in our discipline, where visual evidence is of paramount importance. But as someone has pointed out the danger of trying to fight technology with technology: “We are entering an arms race with AI-based tech that can lead to deepfakes.”14


A core element of the methodology of employing technology in an environment that is getting rapidly more digital is focusing on the needs of users and ideally interacting with them in this process. But how often, when designing our offerings, are we putting the users in the centre of those decisions? Mostly, it is a top-down approach where, as providers, we imagine what the user should want, and not necessarily what is actually wanted by them.10

Thus, the guiding principle for the future should not be an uncritical acceptance of the movement toward technology for technology’s sake, and to embrace the technological developments in journal publishing in an organic fashion, in sync with the demands posed by the journal’s audience.

Source of support


Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


  1. . Life in a liminal space; or, the journey shapes the destination. The Scholarly Kitchen, January 13, 2022[ Life in a Liminal Space; Or, The Journey Shapes the Destination - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 11th April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  2. . More than just data citation – an interview with DataCite. The Scholarly Kitchen, January 26, 2022 [More Than Just Data Citation – An Interview With DataCite - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 11th April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , . Can AI be used ethically to assist peer review? LSE Impact Blog, May 17, 2021 [Can AI be used ethically to assist peer review? | Impact of Social Sciences (] Last accessed 31st March 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . AI-assisted peer review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021;8:25.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. . Where is artificial intelligence taking publishing? Research Information, 10 November 2021 [Where is artificial intelligence taking publishing? | Research Information] Last accessed 24th April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  6. . Make way for the Metaverse. The Scholarly Kitchen, January 10, 2022 [Make Way for the Metaverse - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 11th April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  7. . Revisiting – Journalism, preprint servers, and the truth: Allocating accountability. The Scholarly Kitchen, January 12, 2022 [Revisiting - Journalism, Preprint Servers, and the Truth: Allocating Accountability - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 24th April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  8. . Infodemics and infodemiology: A short history, a long future. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45:e40.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. . The other diversity in scholarly publishing. The Scholarly Kitchen, January 24, 2022 [The Other Diversity in Scholarly Publishing - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Lat accessed 24th April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  10. . Iterative development, user-centered design, and the fear of getting it wrong in publishing. The Scholarly Kitchen, February 1, 2022. [Iterative Development, User-centered Design, and the Fear of Getting it Wrong in Publishing - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 3rd April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  11. . Information experience design: Holistic, humanistic solutions for scholarly products. The Scholarly Kitchen, February 3, 2022 [Information Experience Design: Holistic, Humanistic Solutions for Scholarly Products - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 3rd April, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  12. . Can technology in the post-cookie world be designed to respect user privacy? The Scholarly Kitchen, January 19, 2022. [Guest Post - Can Technology in the Post-cookie World be Designed to Respect User Privacy? - The Scholarly Kitchen (] Last accessed 31st March, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , . “Bosom peril” is not “breast cancer”: How weird computer-generated phrases help researchers find scientific publishing fraud. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 13, 2022 [“Bosom peril” is not “breast cancer”: How weird computer-generated phrases help researchers find scientific publishing fraud - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (] Last accessed 31st March 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  14. . Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts. Nature. 2022;601:14-15.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections