NeuroVoices: Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, on the Future of Stroke Publishing

Scientific publishing in stroke and cerebrovascular medicine has undergone significant change over the past decade, shaped by the rise of open access models, the growing influence of artificial intelligence, and an expanding number of journals seeking to reach new audiences and research communities. At the 2026 World Stroke Congress in Seoul, South Korea, a moderated session titled “A Peek Behind the Curtain of Stroke Journals” brought together editors from across the field to address those questions directly, offering early-career researchers a rare look at how editorial decisions get made.

Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, is the Founding President of the Society for Equity Neuroscience (SEQUINS) and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Heart Association, one of the leading open-access cardiovascular and cerebrovascular journals worldwide. He moderated the session at WSC, and NeurologyLive sat down with him on the sidelines to get his perspective on the state of stroke publishing.

In a new iteration of NeuroVoices, Ovbiagele shared what editors look for in a manuscript that authors often miss, how the publishing landscape has shifted over the past decade, what the field is doing to address equity gaps for researchers in lower- and middle-income countries, and how AI, open access, and preprints are reshaping the way stroke science is reviewed and shared.

NeurologyLive: What do you hope attendees walk away with from your session, and why did this feel like a conversation worth having here at WSC?

Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA: I think it’s extremely important because research is disseminated primarily through journals. It’s great from time to time to enlighten, especially early career folks, about what journal editors look for when they want to publish papers, how to write a good paper, how to review a paper properly, and also about contemporary issues like artificial intelligence and the role it plays in scientific publishing. We have a group of different journal editors who cover stroke research. They’ll each talk about their journals and what they look for, and then we’ll have a group discussion and take questions from the audience. Typically when I’ve done these forums before, they’re attended by early career people who want to learn how to get their papers published.

How has the way stroke research gets published and shared changed over the past decade?

It’s changed in many different ways. There are now many more journals, which is a good thing. More people who have research will hopefully find a place to publish that aligns with their emphasis and methodology. More avenues for people to disseminate their work, and for us to learn about their work.

Of course, there’s also been the rise of AI, whether it’s authors using it to write papers, reviewers using it to evaluate papers, or journals themselves incorporating it into how they triage submissions. The other big issue is open access, where authors pay to publish rather than readers paying to subscribe. This has been driven forward by the National Institutes of Health, which takes the position that once the government has sponsored research, it should be published immediately and in a way that doesn’t effectively charge the taxpayer twice for the same work.

What do editors look for in a manuscript that authors often miss, especially clinicians submitting their first paper?

One of the most common issues is that the methodology section is too brief. Part of disseminating research is not just telling us what you did but telling us how you did it so it can be replicated. Early career authors often write lengthy introductions and discussions but leave the methodology lacking. There have been surveys showing that when you compare papers from first submission to final acceptance, every section tends to decrease in the final version except the methodology, which typically increases considerably. That’s a recognition that editors and reviewers want more. My message to anyone submitting their first paper is to make sure you work on the methodology. I tell my own trainees to write out the full methodology, even have dummy tables ready to fill, before they start performing any experiments at all.

Also, make sure the paper is a good fit for the journal you’re submitting to. Many papers are rejected not because the work isn’t good but because it’s not the right fit. Look at what the journal has published. If you’re not sure, reach out with a pre-submission inquiry. Editors are generally happy to say whether something falls within their remit. And don’t waste time or the editor’s time on that if you already know it’s not a fit.

Getting rejected is part of science. Get comfortable with it. One thing that does tend to irritate editors is when a submission shows visible signs of coming from another journal’s rejection, like a cover letter still addressing the wrong journal. It’s not substantive, but it gives the impression of carelessness.

Finally, put real time into the abstract and the title, and write them last. Let them reflect everything that’s in the paper. At a journal like the Journal of the American Heart Association, we receive well over 7,000 submissions a year. Many editors are not experts in every area, but they can tell whether something is written properly and whether the methodology is appropriate. If the abstract isn’t clear and succinct, a paper can get desk rejected before it ever reaches an external reviewer, and that’s a shame when the underlying work might be solid.

Stroke research is global, but publishing has historically leaned toward certain regions. How is the field working to make journals more inclusive of researchers from lower- and middle-income countries?

I’ll take a step back, because it’s important to recognize that journals are the dissemination channels, not the source of the underlying inequity. Many lower- and middle-income country researchers simply don’t have access to the funding that allows them to do the highest-quality work, and that inequity exists before a paper ever reaches a journal. So the issue starts earlier than publishing itself.

That said, many journals, including ours, waive publication fees for authors from countries defined by the World Bank as low-income. And we try to have special issues dedicated to low- and middle-income country issues, making targeted calls for papers from those regions to increase representation.

On AI, one of the things we’ll likely discuss in the session is whether it can serve as a leveler, particularly for authors whose first language isn’t English. Using AI to improve the comprehensibility of a manuscript, as long as it’s disclosed, is something I think can be quite helpful. Many times, editors and reviewers can be put off when they’re not able to fully comprehend a paper from a region where English isn’t the primary language, and that should never be a reason to reject otherwise scientifically valid work.

Looking ahead, how do you see AI, open access, and preprints reshaping the way stroke science is reviewed and published?

They certainly have and certainly will. We’re still coming to grips with how to approach this, and different journals are taking different approaches. Some say AI is a tool and doesn’t require disclosure, and the manuscript will simply be evaluated on its scientific merits. Others require full disclosure and use AI detection software when that disclosure isn’t made. With our journal, we require disclosure, whether by the author or the reviewer, particularly when AI is being used to improve comprehensibility rather than generate content. We also recognize that for many researchers in lower- and middle-income countries, AI will be extremely important for getting their manuscripts into a presentable form.

Journals are also wrestling with incorporating AI into their own triage processes. One of the biggest frustrations for authors is how long it takes to get a decision, and if AI can help improve that turnaround in a meaningful way, I think that’s important and worth pursuing.

Transcript edited for clarity. For more WSC 2026 coverage, click here.