A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals

Abstract

Abstract Background A thorough and in-depth examination of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines in medical journals will inform potential gaps and promote proper GAI usage in scholarly publishing. This study aims to examine the provision and specificity of GAI usage guidelines and their relationships with journal characteristics. Methods From the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) list for medicine in 2022, we selected 98 journals as top journals to represent highly indexed journals and 144 as whole-spectrum sample journals to represent all medical journals. We examined their GAI usage guidelines for scholarly publishing between December 2023 and January 2024. Results Compared to whole-spectrum sample journals, the top journals were more likely to provide author guidelines (64.3% vs. 27.8%) and reviewer guidelines (11.2% vs. 0.0%) as well as refer to external guidelines (85.7% vs 74.3%). Probit models showed that SJR score or region was not associated with the provision of these guidelines among top journals. However, among whole-spectrum sample journals, SJR score was positively associated with the provision of author guidelines (0.85, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.25) and references to external guidelines (2.01, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.65). Liner models showed that SJR score was positively associated with the specificity level of author and reviewer guidelines among whole-spectrum sample journals (1.21, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70), and no such pattern was observed among top journals. Conclusions The provision of GAI usage guidelines is limited across medical journals, especially for reviewer guidelines. The lack of specificity and consistency in existing guidelines highlights areas deserving improvement. These findings suggest that immediate attention is needed to guide GAI usage in scholarly publishing in medical journals. Key points Question What are the provision and specificity of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing in top and whole-spectrum medical journals and their relationships with journal characteristics? Findings Author guidelines were more abundant and specific in top journals than in whole-spectrum journals. However, reviewer guidelines were extremely scarce in both groups of journals. Journal ranking score was associated with both provision and specificity of GAI usage guidelines in whole-spectrum journals while no significant relationship was found in top journals. Meaning The lack of provision and specificity as well as the inconsistencies in existing guidelines suggest that immediate attention is needed to guide GAI usage in scholarly publishing and safeguard integrity and trust in medical research.

Ähnliche Arbeiten