Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
USC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
BMJ. 2024 Jan 31;384:e077192. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077192.
To determine the extent and content of academic publishers' and scientific journals' guidance for authors on the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI).
Cross sectional, bibliometric study.
Websites of academic publishers and scientific journals, screened on 19-20 May 2023, with the search updated on 8-9 October 2023.
Top 100 largest academic publishers and top 100 highly ranked scientific journals, regardless of subject, language, or country of origin. Publishers were identified by the total number of journals in their portfolio, and journals were identified through the Scimago journal rank using the Hirsch index (H index) as an indicator of journal productivity and impact.
The primary outcomes were the content of GAI guidelines listed on the websites of the top 100 academic publishers and scientific journals, and the consistency of guidance between the publishers and their affiliated journals.
Among the top 100 largest publishers, 24% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 15 (63%) were among the top 25 publishers. Among the top 100 highly ranked journals, 87% provided guidance on GAI. Of the publishers and journals with guidelines, the inclusion of GAI as an author was prohibited in 96% and 98%, respectively. Only one journal (1%) explicitly prohibited the use of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, and two (8%) publishers and 19 (22%) journals indicated that their guidelines exclusively applied to the writing process. When disclosing the use of GAI, 75% of publishers and 43% of journals included specific disclosure criteria. Where to disclose the use of GAI varied, including in the methods or acknowledgments, in the cover letter, or in a new section. Variability was also found in how to access GAI guidelines shared between journals and publishers. GAI guidelines in 12 journals directly conflicted with those developed by the publishers. The guidelines developed by top medical journals were broadly similar to those of academic journals.
Guidelines by some top publishers and journals on the use of GAI by authors are lacking. Among those that provided guidelines, the allowable uses of GAI and how it should be disclosed varied substantially, with this heterogeneity persisting in some instances among affiliated publishers and journals. Lack of standardization places a burden on authors and could limit the effectiveness of the regulations. As GAI continues to grow in popularity, standardized guidelines to protect the integrity of scientific output are needed.
确定学术出版商和科学期刊对作者使用生成式人工智能（GAI）的指导的范围和内容。
横断面、文献计量学研究。
学术出版商和科学期刊的网站，于 2023 年 5 月 19 日至 20 日筛选，2023 年 10 月 8 日至 9 日更新搜索。
前 100 大学术出版商和前 100 名高排名科学期刊，无论主题、语言或来源国如何。出版商的确定依据是其期刊组合中的期刊总数，而期刊则通过 Scimago 期刊排名使用 Hirsch 指数（H 指数）作为期刊生产力和影响力的指标来确定。
主要结果是列出在顶级 100 家学术出版商和科学期刊网站上的 GAI 指南的内容，以及出版商与其附属期刊之间指导意见的一致性。
在前 100 名最大出版商中，有 24%提供了关于使用 GAI 的指导，其中 15 家（63%）是前 25 名出版商之一。在前 100 名高排名期刊中，87%提供了关于 GAI 的指导。在有指南的出版商和期刊中，分别禁止作者将 GAI 纳入 96%和 98%的内容。只有一份期刊（1%）明确禁止在生成手稿中使用 GAI，有两名（8%）出版商和 19 份（22%）期刊表示其指南仅适用于写作过程。在披露使用 GAI 时，75%的出版商和 43%的期刊包括具体的披露标准。披露使用 GAI 的地点各不相同，包括在方法或致谢中、在求职信中或在新的部分中。期刊和出版商之间共享 GAI 指南的访问方式也存在差异。有 12 份期刊的指南直接与出版商制定的指南相冲突。顶级医学期刊制定的指南与学术期刊的指南大致相似。
一些顶级出版商和期刊关于作者使用 GAI 的指南缺乏。在提供指南的情况下，GAI 的允许用途和如何披露它的方式存在很大差异，在某些情况下，这种异质性在附属出版商和期刊中仍然存在。缺乏标准化给作者带来了负担，并可能限制法规的有效性。随着 GAI 的普及，需要制定标准化的指南来保护科学成果的完整性。
