{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02228753367621847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0004898359049718344, 'mean_word_length': 5.421383647798742, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Curating clinical science: what is the future of academic publishing?

In the last few months, the general appetite for exploring possible future outcomes of current trends and discussing prediction scenarios has been intensely stimulated by dramatic manifestations of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Typically, the predicted scenarios highlight transformative impacts rather than incremental changes. The foresights offered are generally pessimistic, but they may suggest actions required to achieve preferable versions of the future. Envisioning the future has been a perennial exercise in the field of publishing too. Recurrent themes mostly include instant publication, universal access, and the issue of quality control. There is less emphasis on other themes classically associated with publishing, such as registration or archiving. This suggests that visions of the future are more focused on an enduring, dynamic, extended present, constantly informed by the insights of non-scientific stakeholders, for their benefit. It is also interesting to remember that the topics that are currently in focus for the future of publishing have a half-a-millennium history that started with the invention of the printing press. Rapid set-up and production, facilitation of the wide circulation of knowledge and ideas, and effective verification processes made printing an agent of fundamental change in society. These topics are, again, very current, owing to recent developments in and uses of information and communication technologies. Universal access to published content is the least remote of the three main themes discussed regarding the future of publishing. Almost worldwide access is now possible, afforded by the development and internationalization of the internet. Efforts are still underway to optimize connectivity, particularly in lowand middle-income countries, but the hottest current debate concerns funding of access to published material. A variety of models are being experimented with, some striving to apply the principle that ‘no science should be locked behind paywalls’ (www.coalitions. org). A number of issues remain to be solved, however, including the lack of equity in publication opportunity among research teams. The aspiration for instant, free access to scientific findings has also been realized through the increasing trend in online posting of ‘preprints’. These are preliminary versions of articles that have not been peer reviewed, or rapid publication of articles that underwent a summary editorial process. Online posting of preprints has generated an empirical reflection on quality control checks. Are peer reviewers, selected by an editor, really necessary? Or are we better off with open dialogue that can blend into collaboration? Are control and management of quality necessary? Do we need editors, or would we prefer extemporaneous, post-publication curation of content by users? Can we be satisfied with reorganization and synthesis performed by automated search algorithms? Is knowledge generated by scientific rigour more, or less, important than discussion entertained within broader, socio-cultural considerations? We have learned in recent times how much answers to those questions are essentially a matter of choice. In some instances, reduction in quality checks has resulted in promotion of incorrect information, which has impacted on individual behaviours and public policies. In a future that may not be so distant, the format of both articles and journals is likely to change completely – and they may seem to disappear. Research itself will, hopefully, become much more collaborative, making the most of networking platforms, and its impact on society may become both more direct and more profound. I hope that authors, reviewers, editors, and staff of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology can play a part in those developments. In the meantime, we must continue to work together to experiment with new means of expression and presentation and engage to better tackle societal problems and promote diversity.