ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2025
A Review of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Journals' Guidelines Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Manuscript Writing.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Content of Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies in Iranian Medical Science Journals.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
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
Objective: To evaluate the submission guidelines of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals regarding their policies on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in manuscript preparation. Design: Cross-sectional study, including 54 MEDLINE-indexed PM&R journals, selected by searching "Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine" as a broad subject term for indexed journals. Non-English journals, conference-related journals, and those not primarily focused on PM&R were excluded. Setting: PM&R journals. Participants: Not applicable. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Reviewing policies regarding the use of AI and comparing CiteScore, Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), and Impact Factor (IF) between journals with an AI policy and those without. Results: Of the 54 PM&R journals, only 46.3% had an AI policy. Among these, none completely banned AI use or allowed unlimited use without a declaration. Most journals (52%) permitted AI for manuscript editing with a required declaration, 44% allowed unlimited AI use with a declaration, and only 4% allowed AI-assisted editing without any declaration. No significant difference was found in scientometric scores between journals considered with and without AI policies ( Conclusions: Under half of MEDLINE-indexed PM&R journals had guidelines regarding the use of AI. None of the journals with AI policies entirely prohibited its use, nor did they allow unrestricted use without a declaration. Journals with defined AI policies did not demonstrate higher citation rates or affect scores.
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.