Alkhawam Mustafa, Almobayed Amr, Pandey Akash, Nanda Navin C, Ebrahimi Ali J, Ahmed Mustafa I
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Cardiovascular Disease, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Am Heart J Plus. 2025 Aug 8;58:100586. doi: 10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100586. eCollection 2025 Oct.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly evolving and offer efficiencies in manuscript generation however, this technology has raised concerns about the potential for bias, errors, and plagiarism to occur. In response, some journals have updated their author guidelines to address AI use.
We assessed author guidelines for 213 MEDLINE-indexed cardiovascular journals to evaluate policies on AI use in manuscript writing. Journal metrics such as CiteScore, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) were compared between journals with and without AI policies. We further analyzed the association between AI policy adoption and society affiliation. We reviewed the criteria for listing AI as an author and allowances for AI-generated content.
Of 213 journals, 170 (79.8 %) had AI policies consistent across evaluations. Policies were present in 115 of 147 (78 %) cardiology journals and 113 of 127 (89 %) vascular journals. Furthermore, 111 of 143 (77.6 %) had AI-use policies, while 59 out of 70 (84.2 %) were unaffiliated journals. Journal metrics did not significantly differ between journals with and without AI policies ( > 0.05). Among journals with policies, 156 out of 158 (98.7 %) excluded AI as authors, while all allowed AI-assisted content.
Many cardiovascular journals address AI-generated content, but gaps remain in policies and disclosure requirements for AI-created manuscripts. The presence of AI-use policies was independent of journal metrics or society affiliation.
人工智能（AI）技术正在迅速发展，并在稿件生成方面提高了效率，然而，这项技术引发了人们对可能出现的偏见、错误和抄袭问题的担忧。作为回应，一些期刊更新了作者指南以应对人工智能的使用。
我们评估了213种被MEDLINE收录的心血管期刊的作者指南，以评估稿件撰写中人工智能使用的政策。比较了有无人工智能政策的期刊之间的期刊指标，如CiteScore、期刊影响因子（JIF）、期刊引用指标（JCI）、每篇论文的源标准化影响（SNIP）和Scimago期刊排名（SJR）。我们进一步分析了人工智能政策采用与协会归属之间的关联。我们审查了将人工智能列为作者的标准以及人工智能生成内容的许可情况。
在213种期刊中，170种（79.8%）在各项评估中拥有一致的人工智能政策。147种心脏病学期刊中的115种（78%）和127种血管学期刊中的113种（89%）有相关政策。此外，143种期刊中的111种（77.6%）有人工智能使用政策，而70种独立期刊中的59种（84.2%）有相关政策。有无人工智能政策的期刊之间的期刊指标没有显著差异（P>0.05）。在有政策的期刊中，158种中的156种（98.7%）不将人工智能列为作者，而所有期刊都允许人工智能辅助内容。
许多心血管期刊都涉及人工智能生成的内容，但在人工智能生成稿件的政策和披露要求方面仍存在差距。人工智能使用政策的存在与期刊指标或协会归属无关。
