Editorial | Closing the inaugural volume

Vol. 1 · No. 1 · 2026 · ISSN 3086-5972 (Online) · Pages 73–75

# Beyond technological enthusiasm

Preserving evidence in accelerated science

Lisandro Gonçalves, DDS, MSc1,2

1 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Digital Health and Advanced Biomaterials (JDHAB), Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.

2 MSc Program in Endodontics, University of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.

Corresponding author: Lisandro Gonçalves

Email: editor@jdhab.org

0009-0004-8140-2876

## Abstract

This closing editorial reflects on the inaugural volume of the Journal of Digital Health and Advanced Biomaterials by arguing that technological innovation acquires scientific value only when it remains accountable to evidence. It addresses the methodological risks of accelerated science, the growing importance of traceability and reproducibility, and the responsibility of scientific journals to preserve critical scrutiny in fields shaped by artificial intelligence, robotic systems, digital infrastructures, and advanced biomaterials.

## Keywords

digital health; advanced biomaterials; editorial responsibility; methodological rigor; accountable innovation; robotic telesurgery.

## Audio summary

Listen to the closing editorial audio summary.

Your browser does not support the audio element.
Read audio transcript

Welcome to the Journal of Digital Health and Advanced Biomaterials audio series.

In this episode, we present the closing editorial of the inaugural volume.

Beyond technological enthusiasm: preserving evidence in accelerated science.

Contemporary healthcare research is entering a paradoxical moment.

Science has never possessed such extensive capacity to visualize, model, quantify, simulate, automate, and digitally reproduce biological and clinical phenomena.

Yet technological sophistication is not always accompanied by equivalent methodological discipline.

This closing editorial reflects on that imbalance.

It argues that innovation acquires scientific value only when it remains accountable to evidence.

In rapidly evolving fields such as artificial intelligence, robotic systems, digital health, and advanced biomaterials, persuasive presentation may sometimes replace interpretive clarity.

Reproducibility may be assumed rather than demonstrated.

Clinical relevance may be inferred from innovation itself.

The result is not necessarily fraudulent science, but something more difficult to recognize: the appearance of precision without sufficient evidentiary depth.

For this reason, editorial responsibility becomes part of the evidentiary structure of science.

Journals can no longer function only as channels for accelerated dissemination.

They must preserve methodological coherence, traceability, reproducibility, transparent interpretation, and disciplined reporting.

The articles in this inaugural volume reflect this perspective.

Although they address distinct subjects, including biomaterial behavior, reversibility, digital workflows, individualized devices, clinical documentation, and technology-assisted healthcare, they converge around one central question: How can innovation be transformed into reliable evidence?

Recent advances in robotic telesurgery illustrate this transformation.

Procedures performed across continents show how digital infrastructures increasingly mediate diagnosis, intervention, and clinical decision-making.

But the scientific relevance of these achievements does not reside only in distance, robotic sophistication, or remote execution.

Their legitimacy depends on documented performance, verified safety, accountability, traceability, and independent scrutiny of outcomes.

As healthcare becomes progressively connected, the evidentiary standards supporting innovation become more important, not less.

This editorial position is not resistance to innovation.

It is a defense of innovation that can be examined, reproduced, interpreted, and responsibly translated into scientific and clinical knowledge.

Scientific progress is not weakened by rigor.

It is sustained by it.

The defining question is no longer whether innovation can occur.

It is whether innovation can remain accountable.

That is the editorial direction this journal intends to cultivate.

Thank you for listening to the Journal of Digital Health and Advanced Biomaterials audio series.

Contemporary healthcare research is entering a paradoxical moment. Science has never possessed such extensive capacity to visualize, model, quantify, simulate, automate, and digitally reproduce biological and clinical phenomena. Three-dimensional workflows, artificial intelligence, advanced biomaterials, robotic systems, computational diagnostics, digital twins, and sophisticated interfaces are rapidly reshaping the language of innovation. Yet scientific communication is increasingly exposed to a subtle but consequential imbalance: technical sophistication is not always accompanied by equivalent methodological discipline.

This tension is becoming structural.

In many emerging fields, scientific value is increasingly associated with visual complexity, algorithmic vocabulary, computational power, and novelty. Under these conditions, persuasive presentation may begin to replace interpretive clarity. Reproducibility may be assumed rather than demonstrated. Clinical relevance may be inferred from innovation itself. Sophisticated outputs may coexist with fragile transparency. The result is not necessarily fraudulent science, but something harder to recognize: the appearance of precision without sufficient evidentiary depth.

For scientific publishing, this challenge extends beyond the assessment of isolated manuscripts. It directly affects editorial responsibility. Journals can no longer function merely as channels for accelerated dissemination. In rapidly evolving technological fields, editorial rigor becomes part of the evidentiary structure of science. Methodological coherence, traceability, reproducibility, transparent interpretation, and disciplined reporting are not secondary formalities added after discovery; they are conditions that allow scientific claims to remain examinable, comparable, and clinically meaningful over time.

The Journal of Digital Health and Advanced Biomaterials was established within this context and from this concern. The journal was not conceived simply as a repository for technology-oriented research, but as an editorial space committed to preserving methodological seriousness in disciplines increasingly shaped by automation, digital mediation, computational systems, and material innovation. Scientific advancement depends not only on the capacity to create new technologies, but also on the capacity to critically examine their assumptions, limitations, interpretability, and translational relevance.

This position is intentionally interdisciplinary. Digital health and advanced biomaterials do not evolve through isolated domains of knowledge. Clinical sciences, material sciences, engineering, rehabilitation, imaging, artificial intelligence, data science, and digitally mediated workflows increasingly converge within the same investigational environments. However, interdisciplinarity without conceptual discipline risks producing fragmentation rather than integration. Innovation without evidentiary structure risks producing enthusiasm without durability.

The articles in this inaugural volume reflect this perspective. Together, they illustrate how contemporary health research increasingly operates at the intersection of digital systems, material science, clinical reasoning, and evidence generation. Although they address distinct subjects, including biomaterial behavior and reversibility, digital workflows, individualized devices, clinical documentation, and technology-assisted healthcare, they converge around a common question: how can innovation be transformed into reliable evidence? Across different methodologies and applications, the central challenge remains the same: ensuring that increasingly sophisticated tools remain connected to reproducible methods, interpretable outcomes, and clinically meaningful conclusions.

Recent advances in robotic telesurgery illustrate this transformation particularly well. Procedures performed across continents, separated by thousands of kilometers, show how digital infrastructures increasingly mediate diagnosis, intervention, and clinical decision-making. What recently belonged to technological speculation has entered clinical practice. Yet the scientific relevance of these achievements resides not merely in distance, robotic sophistication, or remote execution. Their legitimacy depends on the ability to document performance, verify safety, establish accountability, preserve traceability, and enable independent scrutiny of outcomes. As healthcare becomes progressively connected, the evidentiary standards supporting innovation become more important, not less.

For this reason, JDHAB places particular emphasis on research capable of connecting technological development to accountable evidence. We are especially interested in work that values transparent methods, measurable outcomes, reproducible workflows, clinically interpretable endpoints, robust validation strategies, and scientifically defensible reasoning. Technological sophistication acquires relevance only when accompanied by analytical clarity and methodological responsibility.

This editorial position should not be interpreted as resistance to innovation. On the contrary, it reflects the conviction that emerging technologies will achieve durable scientific and clinical legitimacy only if they remain anchored to standards capable of supporting independent scrutiny and reproducible interpretation. Scientific progress is not weakened by rigor; it is sustained by it.

As contemporary research becomes increasingly capable of scanning, modeling, engineering, automating, printing, simulating, and algorithmically generating solutions, the responsibility of scientific journals becomes correspondingly greater. The future credibility of digital health and advanced biomaterials will depend not only on what technology makes possible, but on what science continues to make verifiable.

The defining question is no longer whether innovation can occur.

It is whether innovation can remain accountable.

That is the editorial direction this journal intends to cultivate — and the standard against which future innovation should continue to be examined.

Lisandro Gonçalves, DDS, MSc
Editor-in-Chief, JDHAB
Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-8140-2876
editor@jdhab.org

## License and reuse

© 2026 Lisandro Gonçalves. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

## Publisher AI and text-mining notice

This article is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Any automated harvesting, large-scale text and data mining, or machine-learning reuse of journal content must preserve proper attribution, source integrity, citation metadata, and compliance with applicable legal, ethical, and platform-use requirements.