Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

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

Shuhui Yin, Peiyi Lu, Zhuoran Xu, Zi Lian, Chenfei Ye, View ORCID ProfileChihua Li
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.19.24304550
Shuhui Yin
1Applied Linguistics & Technology, Department of English, Iowa State University, IA, USA
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peiyi Lu
2Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zhuoran Xu
3Graduate Group in Genomics and Computational Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zi Lian
4Center for Health Equity & Urban Science Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
EdD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chenfei Ye
5International Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
6Pengcheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: chihuali{at}umich.edu chenfei.ye{at}foxmail.com
Chihua Li
7State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
8Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, MI, USA
DrPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Chihua Li
  • For correspondence: chihuali{at}umich.edu chenfei.ye{at}foxmail.com
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

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.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

None

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or included as supplementary materials. Full data and analytical code are available from the corresponding author at chihuali{at}umich.edu.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 20, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals
Shuhui Yin, Peiyi Lu, Zhuoran Xu, Zi Lian, Chenfei Ye, Chihua Li
medRxiv 2024.03.19.24304550; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.19.24304550
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals
Shuhui Yin, Peiyi Lu, Zhuoran Xu, Zi Lian, Chenfei Ye, Chihua Li
medRxiv 2024.03.19.24304550; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.19.24304550

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Medical Ethics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)