Response by Dr. Lu:
The answer to this question lies in two key aspects - how to secure the copyright or confidentiality and originality of a submitted paper while making an efficient and correct editorial decision when incorporating AI/GenAI functions into the editorial and publication processes. This encompasses the primary potential risks and opportunities associated with integrating AI into these processes.

With the rapid development of AI nowadays, especially generative AI, the concept of AI-driven publishing platforms is beginning to emerge in the publishing industry. One outstanding question would be how it will reshape the responsibilities of human editors and reviewers. However, just as COPE and other related parties define the roles of authorship, i.e., 'COPE ... state that AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper', because 'AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work' (COPE, 2024). The same principle applies to the cases of selecting editors and reviewers, i.e., the responsibilities of editors and reviewers should only be taken by humans, rather than AI tools. All major publishers prohibit their editors and reviewers from using unauthorized AI tools to check and review the submitted papers or uploading them and the review records to the AI tool platforms (Elsevier, 2024; Springer Nature, 2024). The reason for this is that current AI tools, including the pre-trained generative ones, lack transparency and legal clearance in their training process. The uploaded information could be stored and re-used as new training materials by the AI tools, with classified research content and information likely being broken to unknown channels and parties. This could compromise the most important part of a research paper - its originality and creation, or copyright.

In addition, AI tools work based on pre-trained LLM based on existing knowledge, which means they cannot make a correct judgment on cutting-edge results as supposed to appear in a newly submitted work. Furthermore, AI tools can provide an answer that seems right but is actually wrong.

Most reputable journals and publishers, all have well-established publication and reviewer databases integrated into their editorial systems. For new launches or those in multidisciplinary subject areas, journal editors can always ask authors to recommend potential reviewers for reference. AI-driven publishing platforms, especially those based on localized databases with secured information security, will help to streamline the editorial and publication processes. However, all the editorial and peer review processes must finally be checked verified and decided upon by a responsible human.

Response by Dr. Lu:
Branding is crucial in the research and publication ecosystem. The primary goals of this ecosystem are to create and disseminate new knowledge, maintain publication records, and democratize the knowledge. A researcher's career and reputation depend on their published work and citations received, and journals and publishers that publish the best research establish themselves as reputable. Similarly, reputable abstract indexing platforms such as WoS/JCR, PubMed, and Scopus have high selection criteria for included journals. The current research and dissemination ecosystems, along with open access, preprint and archiving efforts, and experiments with various forms of peer-review processes, are effectively working towards achieving these goals.

Blockchain technology is renowned for its highly secure decentralization functions in banking, trading, and other business purposes. In my opinion, its primary application may remain in these areas.

Looking ahead, published papers with evolving and clustering functions may become increasingly prevalent in the scholarly publishing industry. This could facilitate the organization and clustering of authors' research work, particularly for those focusing on similar topics or review articles.

Response by Dr. Lu:
In comparison to the need for research facilities and infrastructure, a researcher's direct requirement for advanced technologies like AI and blockchain to support their research and publication is generally lower. These technologies are typically accessible via the internet, even for researchers from low- resource settings. The adoption of new technologies by journals and publishers, such as various forms of publication support setups on their websites, can actually assist researchers with limited resources. Additionally, all major journals and publishers offer special rates or benefits to the researchers and institutions in low-resource settings. Journals and publishers from low-resource settings can also seek assistance and collaborations from their major global counterparts to support their research dissemination efforts. And AI and blockchain providers can take similar steps in supporting researchers from low-resource settings from being left behind. All such measures from the related stakeholders will promote inclusivity and equitable access to these AI tools for research and its publication.

Response by Dr. Lu:
Transparency is always a priority in ensuring research and publication integrity. Advancements in new technology can help identify potential misconduct in a submitted paper, enabling publishers and institutions to prevent any misconduct from the outset of conducting research and preparing the paper. For example, publishers may provide a research paper pre-checking function on their websites linking only to their own published and submitted contents internally and those published literature (but not to unspecified external sources), requiring authors to conduct a self-check of their paper for essential research integrity items and obtain a signed confirmation from their hosting institutions before they submitting that paper to that journal/publisher.

Response by Dr. Lu:
The concept of evolving papers, as previously mentioned, may see increased adoption for review articles or published papers focusing on specific topics. Furthermore, the development of customized GenAI tools hosted locally and utilizing publishers' own databases with secure information safety measures and legal clearance would further promote the direct utilization of such tools in scholarly publishing.

Response by Dr. Lu:
Publishers are at the forefront of disseminating new knowledge and its sharing, and they have an obligation to safeguard publication integrity. They should always prioritize publication integrity over financial interests. While as we see from the retraction and black-listing records, a bulk amount of publication misconduct today involves publishers, though with the majority from predatory ones, some were from quite 'reputable' players. This situation must change.