2025 is already off to a rapid start for digital mental health technology. One of the emerging themes for this year is regulation, which opens questions about how different governments plan to assess, regulate, and pay for digital mental health technology.

Scholarly and scientific publishing is constantly evolving, and most recently driven by major movements towards open science and also influenced by the widespread availability of technology, like generative artificial intelligence. Negative influencers such as misaligned academic incentives, “pay-to-publish” publishing models, paper mills and plagiarism, and other unethical behaviors and their consequences are on the rise. The evergreen challenge? Keeping research transparent, trustworthy, and just plain honest. Research integrity is super important, to say the very least – and it is HOT! 

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the peer review process is a rapidly evolving landscape, offering the promise of streamlined efficiency and increased objectivity. However, this exciting development also highlights several ethical considerations that reviewers should thoughtfully address and navigate. Most importantly, if a reviewer is considering using generative AI to help them with performing a peer review, first check journal policy on whether this is permissible and, if so, then how.

Ethical considerations are paramount in eHealth and informatics research, particularly when dealing with human subjects. Peer reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring that research adheres to the highest ethical standards. Therefore, one of the main responsibilities of a reviewer is to carefully scrutinize studies and verify that they have conducted their human subjects research ethically. 

Inclusive language is more than just a matter of political correctness; it's essential for cultivating an academic environment where everyone feels valued, respected, and heard. In the realm of peer review, where critical feedback is exchanged, the choice of words carries significant weight. Let's delve deeper into how we can make our reviews more inclusive and unbiased.

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, acting as a way to support the publication of high-quality research and to maintain scientific integrity. During peer review, experts evaluate the work of their peers, providing invaluable feedback. Some examples of key feedback during peer reviews include: evaluations of the validity of the scientific question(s) and approach, methodological rigor, how the work contributes to scientific advancement, potential errors or missing relevant/milestone references in the field, and significance and originality of the research (or appropriateness of reproduction in reproducibility studies, if applicable). 

Welcome to a special JMIR Publications blog series: Inside Peer Review: A Special 5 Part Series. 

Over the course of Peer Review Week, we’ll dive into essential topics for peer reviewers, including insights for early career researchers, the art of high-quality reviews, inclusive language, ethical considerations, and the impact of AI. 

Stay tuned each day for valuable tips and expert perspectives that will enhance your understanding of the peer review process.

As we celebrate Rehabilitation Awareness Week, we reflect on the significant strides in  rehabilitation and assistive technologies. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies (JRAT) has been privileged to witness the continued evolution of the field, driven by groundbreaking research and innovative approaches. To commemorate this week, we’ve invited some of our esteemed editorial board members to share their insights on recent developments and future directions in rehabilitation science

This blog post contains content related to suicide and may be distressing for some readers. If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, please seek support from mental health professionals or reach out to a crisis hotline.