Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023 - 538

industry and government use JFP articles but their
impact in these fields is not encompassed in citations.
It was also noted that more has been done on social
media interactions. When people bookmark articles in
their reference library this can be seen as well. Authors
can see in granular detail where the article has been
mentioned.
Next, Jenn presented a summary of the current
generative AI policies, Elsevier generative AI policies
- were shared with the attendees. AI can be used
but only to improve language and readability and not
the substance of the article or data/figures. Has to be
overseen by the author. Authors need to disclose when
they use it. Judy Luther then added that this is the first
that citable years will be usable (2023). Next, there
was a question raised as to some past year's articles
missing from the back catalog in the new system. It was
noted that if anyone notices this, they should contact
Elsevier, the Editors, or the management committee
leadership to get the issue resolved. Joshua Gurtler
then noted the articles that received the highest level
of engagement via downloads, citations, and social
media consisted of a lot of invited reviews solicited by
the Editors, indicating the success of this practice and
need to continue it. Alvin Lee then noted that there are
other metrics that indicate the quality and success of
JFP different from impact factor that we could utilize;
specifically, the h index. A number of competitive
journals have a higher IF but much lower than h index
than JFP, which is quite high in the field at 148. Alvin
then noted there can sometimes also be significant
discrepancies between the citations attributed to an
article between Google Scholar and Science Direct.
Jenn noted this is quite true even though in theory all
databases should be the same. Elsevier uses Scopus
while Clarivate uses Web of Science. Google Scholar is
quite different, and she noted it can be less reliable than
the former two systems.
Next, Panos Skandamis provided the Scientific
Editors report. He noted historically one of the
challenges in increasing the recognition of JFP was
that it historically did not have the sheer number of
competitive journals a few decades ago that it does
today, which has contributed to the loss in IF. Thus,
it is not that JFP is not publishing good science, it is
that there are now many other journals also publishing
similar science. He noted the dilemma that in order
to increase the number of high quality submissions
to increase IF, it helps for the journal itself to have
a competitive IF. He noted Open Access and the
Elsevier platform will provide a number of advantages
in increasing the exposure and citations of JFP. He
underscored the importance of continuing to attract
and encourage others to submit high quality papers
to JFP, as well as the importance of maintaining a
competitive speed to first decision and maintaining
the admirable level JFP has achieved. He noted there
have been two successful webinars reaching out to
potential authors in North America and Asia.
538 Food Protection Trends November/December
Panos also noted that there are plans to start
producing special issues for the journal, including a
special issue associated with the Annual Meeting,
to publish works based on content and topics from
the meeting. There were additional comments from
others regarding the idea of reaching out to those who
present or organize sessions on high impact topics
to potentially contribute to JFP on those topics, after
reviewing proposals/the program of the meeting.
Panos then noted some other general trends and
observations since the switch to open access. He
noted that there has been a noticeable decrease in
out of scope submissions, as well as generally better
quality manuscripts being submitted lately. This was
noted to be a good sign that JFP is receiving more and
more high quality manuscripts.
Annette then also made the point that JFP likely has
a substantially higher impact than a lot of the metrics
discussed cover. Specifically, in industry papers are
used and shared but this is not encompassed in a lot
of the metrics used. Catherine Cutter then added that
this is also true in policy settings, as referenced to JFP
and FPT papers in policy and guidance documents
do not usually count towards these metrics. Patricia
Rule seconded the point about impact to industry,
and mentioned that maybe folks in industry could be
encouraged to share especially valuable work on their
social media like Twitter. Finally, Joshua Gurtler then
noted that in addition to time to decision and better
exposure via Open Access, authors get the benefit
of JFP having a very competitive article processing
charge, which is $2,000 for non-members and $1,600
for members. This is notably less than other similar
journals, whose open access charge can range from
$2,080 to over $4,000.
New Business: New business was then addressed,
starting with discussion by Matthew Moore about the
use of generative AI in scientific publications and the
policy JFP wants to adopt. The current policy of JFP
defaulted to that of Elsevier, which could be modified
or altered by JFP if preferred. Briefly, this policy
states that authors can only use AI and AI-assisted
technologies to improve readability and/or language
of the work and nothing substantive; authors must
also carefully ensure that in using this technology
for language that it does not change the meaning or
substance of the work; the use of such technology
must be disclosed by the authors in a statement in
the work; and that ChatGPT or similar AI technologies
cannot be listed as authors on the work because they
should not be used to the degree that they would rise
to the level of authorship.
Joshua Gurtler then noted that there should be
caution, especially during revisions, as changing the
language in many cases can change the implication
or connotation of the work's substance, especially
when scientific terms or names are modified. Jovana
Kovacevic then asked what would happen if it is used
and not disclosed. Jenn noted that this can be tricky,
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023
