British Medical JournalPublishers’ and Journals’ Instructions to Authors on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Academic and Scientific publishing: Bibliometric Analysis

Navigating the New Frontier: The Impact and Guidelines of Generative AI in Academic Publishing

The rapid adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools, such as ChatGPT, in academic research and publishing has revolutionized how manuscripts are prepared, offering new capabilities while raising important ethical and procedural questions. As the medical and academic communities strive to integrate these technologies responsibly, a comprehensive understanding of the evolving landscape is essential for physicians engaged in research and scholarly writing. This summary encapsulates the findings of a thorough investigation into the guidelines provided by the world’s leading academic publishers and scientific journals regarding the use of GAI, highlighting the disparities in guidance and the urgent need for standardized practices.

Key Points:

• GAI tools like ChatGPT have seen unprecedented adoption in academia, spurring debate on their role in research and publishing.
• More than 650 research articles have discussed GAI applications and pitfalls, underlining the technology’s impact on academic writing.
• Major scientific journals and publishers are updating editorial policies to address GAI use, with emphasis on disclosure and authorship responsibility.
• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) suggests authors are accountable for AI-generated work but does not offer comprehensive guidelines for GAI use.
• An examination of the top 100 academic publishers and journals revealed a lack of standardization in GAI guidelines, with only 24% of publishers and 87% of journals offering specific guidance.
• Disclosure requirements vary widely, with most guidelines recommending mentioning GAI use in the manuscript’s methods section or acknowledgments.
• Significant heterogeneity exists in the guidelines for GAI use, including differences in disclosure practices, accountability for AI-generated content, and the scope of GAI application in research.
• Recent updates to guidelines show an increased focus on image generation and specific disclosure criteria, indicating evolving standards for GAI use in publishing.

HCN Medical Memo
The conclusion reveals significant variability in the guidelines for using Generative AI (GAI) in academic research and writing, with none based on a structured consensus among stakeholders. This underscores the critical need for unified, cross-disciplinary policies to address the widespread confusion and lack of standardization, likened to the Babel Tower phenomenon.

More on Artificial Intelligence (AI)