One of the aspects that is most concerned with the agents involved in editing in general and medical in particular is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to produce content. As Dr. Helena Donato mentioned in the article of our Special Edition "Digital Medicine", in a survey promoted by Nature to a group of more than 1600 scientists, 31% reported that they used the Chatbots currently available. About 63% of respondents reported that they used AI tools to refine texts.¹

No one talks about AI as a possible future anymore, and, on the contrary, the discussion in expert circles is bipolarized between those who consider it as a threat to the survival of humanity and those who consider it as the solution to their existential problems.^2-4

I reflect on this aspect, far from being an expert in AI, and, in fact, in our special issue several aspects of the influence of AI on medical editing and practice were discussed and presented with more propriety than I will be able to speak. I consider myself to be one of those who see AI realistically, tempering optimism with ethical concerns focused on the need to regulate it.

On the other hand, what worries me is the deficit in the production of editorial work in Internal Medicine in Portugal, which is partly reflected by the quantity and quality of the articles that the Portuguese Journal of Internal Medicine (RPMI) receives as proposals for publication. I mention it in part, because it is not up to me to measure a production index as important as the scientific publication of Portuguese Internal Medicine by just one factor. But I have no doubt that RPMI is an agent that must be considered for its analysis. Hence, the quantity of content is low, and the quality is disproportionate in the typology of articles in the form of clinical cases. And what makes me reflect is the contrast of this pattern with the profusion of tools that facilitate the process of producing content and publishing it. I speak from the perspective of RPMI's Editor-in-Chief, and from what comes to us, there is little clinical research and little review of what is being done and what there is evidence to do better. What worries me now is not the threat of AI, but the lack of use of it to help Portuguese doctors produce original content and publish it among their peers in the community where they work.

I do not understand this with a pessimistic tone and a throw-in attitude. Without a realistic vision, the work that requires the editing of technical-scientific content is very limited. To increase and stimulate the edition in our journal, I suggest that it be discussed at the level of the services, involving interns and graduates, about what can be done, to, for example, optimize the flow of scientific information that circulates and guides our daily practice for the elaboration of systematic reviews that could be published in our journal. At the level of the Portuguese Society of Internal Medicine, I believe it is necessary to stimulate the discussion in its Study Groups, to stimulate the elaboration of guidelines, based on structured consensus and systematic reviews, which then configure publications of high scientific interest and with great potential to be used by the international community. With the increase in this type of publications, our reach and prestige increase, the level of indexing evolves to a greater coverage of databases, and from there it is a constructive process to receive original research works, where Universities and Research Institutes are also involved.

There is so much work to do... And I emphasize that I do not want to pass on a pessimistic tone. The proof is this issue 3 of the journal, with original works ranging from the prospective study by Diana Rocha et al in patients hospitalized for COVID-19,⁵ an analysis of the prescribing patterns of proton pump inhibitors by Carlos Chaves et al,⁶ and the description of the extensive experience with Listeriosis of a Portuguese Hospital Center by Andreia Costa et al.⁷ And there is much more in this issue, with good clinical cases, review and guidance of good practices. And we have a lot of Intelligence to do much more!