ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2026Article
- Digital Mental Health Research Priorities, Revisited for the AI and Large Language Model Era.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Value and Credibility of Meta-Analysis: Tutorial on Enhancing Methodological Rigor and AI-Powered Efficiency.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Implementation of a Multidevice Telemonitoring Program for Home-Based Nursing Care in Quebec: Qualitative Report.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Experiences of Older Adults and Caregivers With Home Telemonitoring for Heart Failure in Canada: Qualitative Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Smart Glasses for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: Explanatory Mixed Methods Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence as a Safeguard for Clinical Scientific Integrity: A Human-AI Hybrid Model for Medical Peer Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions and Intentions of Nursing Students Regarding Digital Health: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Recommendations regarding artificial intelligence for manuscript writing.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Vignettes.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2026Article
- AI-assisted peer review: efficiency for reviewers, burden for authors-a narrative review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Conducting Eating Disorder Research in the Era of Generative AI: Researcher Perspectives and Guidelines From the International Journal of Eating Disorders.The International journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Viewpoint on the Intersection Among Health Information, Misinformation, and Generative AI Technologies.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- The evolving roles of editors and reviewers for nonhuman "authors": Consequences for the integrity of scientific literature and medical knowledge.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the impact of large language learning models on publications in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.JSES international · 2025Article
- Establishing a policy statement on the use of artificial intelligence in neurosurgery.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Demographics and Use of an Addiction Helpline for Concerned Significant Others: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- [Applications of artificial intelligence in science: a practical guide for editors and authors].Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.