ReviewNeurosurgical review2025
Neurosurgical journals' policies on artificial intelligence use in manuscript preparation and peer review.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), continues to progress, its impact on academic publishing, both in manuscript drafting and peer review, has attracted considerable attention. In neurosurgery, where journals serve a crucial role in disseminating research, formal guidelines regarding AI remain relatively underexplored. Our study aims to investigate the current state of AI policies among prominent neurosurgical journals, focusing on their role in manuscript preparation and peer review. 38 neurosurgical journals were identified by searching the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine Welch Medical Library, combined with National Library of Medicine subject terms. Each journal's author instructions, editorial policies, and peer-review guidelines were examined for explicit AI usage policies, focusing on manuscript preparation and peer review. Tasks such as writing assistance, data analysis, figure generation, and citation management were documented if identified. Any stated requirements, prohibitions, and disclosure practices for AI were recorded, as well as instances where no policy existed. Of the 38 journals surveyed, 31 (81.6%) had AI use guidelines, 9 (23.7%) based on individual journal-level explicit policies and 22 (57.9%) based on publisher-level guidelines. Majority of journals (n=30, 78.9%) provided guidelines for using AI in manuscript preparation, with most prohibiting its inclusion as an author. Most journals allow but mandate transparent disclosure of AI involvement in readability improvements, grammar correction, and style editing. Fewer journals (n = 13, 34.2%) specified AI policies for peer review, although those that did mention AI often prohibited its use for evaluating submissions due to confidentiality concerns. Although many neurosurgical journals now acknowledge AI's role in manuscript preparation, guidelines for AI-driven peer review remain scarce. Given AI's rapid advancement, establishing clear, comprehensive, and standardized AI policies will be critical for upholding transparency, quality, and efficiency in neurosurgical publishing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41014405What 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.