ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2025
Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical paradox: PenWorld journal of methodology · 2026Review
- Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Authors, reviewers, editors… smitten and bitten by the artificial intelligence (AI) bug!Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Consideration of Ethics in AI-assisted Scientific Writing and Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Large Language Models and the Future of Peer-Reviewed Medical Publishing: Challenges, Editorial Responses, and a Framework for Responsible Integration.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: Disclosure of Generative AI Usage in Biomedical Academic Writings Should Be Mandatory and Comprehensive.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Toward Structured Transparency: A Governance Framework for AI Use in Biomedical Publishing.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Un-AI-ing: Compliance, Evasion, and the Distortion of Research Writing in the Age of AI Detection.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence create human touch in medical writing? A pilot study.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- Clarity Without Credibility? Human Versus AI Abstracts in Otolaryngology.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- Ethical Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Use in Scholarly Publishing for Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research: A Framework for Integrity.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2026Article
- Writing as formation: supervising AI use in early-career medical authorship.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Applications, Challenges, and Prospects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Empowering Medical Education: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor: Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Medical Research at a Crossroads: Charting the Path Forward WithJournal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Academic writing in medicine and healthcare.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Comparing Manual and ChatGPT Deep Research on Systematic Search and Selection in the PubMed Database on the Topic of Dental Implantology.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Mind the gap: A cross-sectional analysis of large language model guidance in emergency medicine journals.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming the landscape of medical writing and publishing. In response, major academic organizations and high-impact journals have released guidelines addressing core ethical concerns, including authorship qualification, disclosure of AI use, and the attribution of accountability. This review analyzes and compares key statements from several international medical or scientific editors' organizations along with submission policies of major leading journals. It also evaluates the AI usage policy of the
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.