ArticleF1000Research2023
Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis.
Article in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- The use and methodological reporting of large language models in qualitative research: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5-generated surgical literature: the accuracy of a review on penile prosthesis implantation.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Content of Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies in Iranian Medical Science Journals.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- Editorial: Research ethics and integrity in the artificial intelligence era.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- The Presence and Nature of AI-Use Disclosure Statements in Medical Education Journals: A Bibliometric Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- A qualitative programme evaluation of New Era, a mentorship programme for women leaders in sport.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Algorithmic scholarship and academic evaluation: governance misalignment in the age of generative AI.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research: the GAMER Statement.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The crucial role and challenges of medical journal editors in the modern era.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- An iterative approach to evaluating impact of CTSA projects using the translational science benefits model.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- The Blurred Thresholds of AI-Use Disclosure: Health Professions Education Journal Editors' Expectations of Necessity and Sufficiency.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology : official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology · 2024Review
- Article
- Educational Utility of Clinical Vignettes Generated in Japanese by ChatGPT-4: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Variability in Journal and Publisher Policies on Artificial Intelligence Use in Manuscript Preparation: An Orthopaedic Perspective.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI (GenAI) have become more common in academic settings, it is necessary to examine how these tools interact with issues of authorship, academic integrity, and research methodologies. The current landscape lacks cohesive policies and guidelines for regulating AI's role in academic research which has prompted discussions among publishers, authors, and institutions. Methods: This study employs inductive thematic analysis to explore publisher policies regarding AI-assisted authorship and academic work. Our methods involved a two-fold analysis using both AI-assisted and traditional unassisted techniques to examine the available policies from leading academic publishers and other publishing or academic entities. The framework was designed to offer multiple perspectives, harnessing the strengths of AI for pattern recognition while leveraging human expertise for nuanced interpretation. The results of these two analyses are combined to form the final themes. Results: Our findings indicate six overall themes, three of which were independently identified in both the AI-assisted and unassisted, manual analysis using common software tools. A broad consensus appears among publishers that human authorship remains paramount and that the use of GenAI tools is permissible but must be disclosed. However, GenAI tools are increasingly acknowledged for their supportive roles, including text generation and data analysis. The study also discusses the inherent limitations and biases of AI-assisted analysis, necessitating rigorous scrutiny by authors, reviewers, and editors. Conclusions: There is a growing recognition of AI's role as a valuable auxiliary tool in academic research, but one that comes with caveats pertaining to integrity, accountability, and interpretive limitations. This study used a novel analysis supported by GenAI tools to identify themes emerging in the policy landscape, underscoring the need for an informed, flexible approach to policy formulation that can adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technologies.
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.