ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) pose novel ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing. Although AI-related policies are emerging in many disciplines, little is known about the extent and clarity of AI guidance in bioethics and health humanities journals.
methodsA search of publicly available journal lists from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, Health Humanities Consortium, and Association for Medical Humanities was supplemented with Google Scholar's top 20 bioethics journals ranked by h5-index. This yielded 54 unique journals, of which 50 remained after excluding those without a functional website or recent publications. AI policies were reviewed at the journal and publisher levels were assessed via website review, and editors were contacted for clarification when required. Data extraction was conducted by one author and independently verified by two additional researchers to ensure accuracy.
resultsOf the 50 journals analyzed, only 8 (16%) had a clear AI policy, while 27 (54%) were published by a publisher with an identifiable AI policy. Publisher AI policy statements were favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. Five (10%) of the 8 journals with a clear AI policy explicitly prohibited AI-generated text in submissions. The remaining 15 (30%) journals did not have a publicly available AI policy. Ten of these 15 journals confirmed an absence of any formal AI policy, and seven indicated that discussion to develop guidelines was ongoing.
conclusionThe adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently inconsistent. Some journals explicitly ban AI-generated text, whereas others permit AI-assisted writing, with publisher policies being favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. The lack of standardized AI guidelines underscores the need for further discussion to ensure the ethical and responsible integration of AI in academic publishing.
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.