A big thank you and a warm welcome

On July 1, 2024, we will say goodbye to Dion Brocks, James Burris, Monette Cotreau, Michael Court, Vera Donnenberg, Kerry Estes, Michael Jann, William Jusko, Adel Karara, Jing Li, Melanie Nicol, George Perentesis, Mark Ratain, Catherine Sherwin, Antonio Tugores, and John Wagner as outgoing members of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (JCP). On behalf of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology (ACCP), I would like to profusely thank all of them for their outstanding service as Editorial Board members and sincerely hope they will continue to serve as peer reviewers for the Journal as well as submit their best original and review work to JCP for many years to come.

At the same time, I am excited to extend a warm welcome to our newly appointed Editorial board members Karel Allegaert, Luke Baxter, David Burger, Carter Cao, Ayyappa Chaturvedula, Andre Dallmann, Elimika Pfuma Fletcher, Verena Gotta, Navin Goyal, Hazem Hassan, Chuanpu Hu, Zheng Jiao, Gilbert Koch, Don Mager, Cody Peer, Ana Ruiz-Garcia, Sinno Simons, Janelle Vaughns, Wei Zhao, and Victoria Ziesenitz.

It is important to emphasize that members of the Editorial Board not only have an extremely important role in enhancing the scientific quality of the Journal but also carry an important responsibility in strategically supporting the growth of the Journal. To succeed in reaching these goals, an efficient, effective, and collegial collaboration between members of the Editorial Board, the Chair and Members of the ACCP's Publications Committee, ACCP staff, the Senior Managing and Associate Managing Editors, the Publisher, the Associate Editors, and Editor-in-Chief is absolutely necessary.

The future of JCP is bright and promising. Several initiatives such as the development of graphical and video abstracts, plain language summaries, and, last but not least, mentoring of new and junior peer reviewers, are either ongoing or under active deliberations. In addition to actively contributing to the success of these exciting initiatives, we count on the Editorial Board members to provide constructive suggestions on how we can collectively improve the quality and global visibility and impact of our Journal. I have unequivocal and unwavering confidence in the strengths of this outstanding Editorial Board and am looking forward to receiving their innovative and creative ideas in the near future.

There are also worrisome issues that deserve our immediate and undivided attention. Let us start with the most gruesome one of those: fake science. One of the sources of propagating and promoting fake science is the worrisome emergence of entities colloquially referred to as “paper mills.” One of the modus operandi of such businesses or individuals is to list a scientist as an author of a wholly or partially fabricated paper. The “mill” will then submit the work, generally avoiding the most prestigious journals in favor of journals whose peer review processes are less stringent. In addition, the same manuscript is frequently simultaneously submitted to multiple journals to maximize the chance of acceptance. In essence, the “paper mill” will identify the weakest link in the manuscript submission-to-acceptance workflow and continue to exploit it until this nefarious approach is detected. Publishers are counteracting with advanced technologies; however, these “paper mills” are using similar tools to avoid detection and disseminate fake science. Unfortunately, when publishers become aware of what is happening, these “paper mills” adapt and evolve, similar to a mutating virus.

Another issue is the increasing use of artificial intelligence to “author” and review professional journal submissions. It is absolutely imperative that a clear and comprehensive set of guidelines are formulated to combat this alarming trend.

Clearly, these and other issues which promote and support the dissemination of fake science and thereby undermine the confidence of the broader scientific community in scientific literature, need to be urgently addressed. Designing and implementing a collaborative multistakeholder approach, led by our publisher, is critical to assure our readership that our Journal is not only aware of these threats but is laser-focused on actively identifying pragmatic solutions to protect the integrity of the science we publish in JCP. In collaboration with our publisher, we expect to embed additional screening tools in our workflow to help support our reviewers and the wider editorial team.

Thank you for all your continued support, contributions, and dedication to grow the reputation and global visibility of the Journal!