ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2026
Survey of Guidance for Authors on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Pharmaceutical Journals.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Challenge of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Journals.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 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
Background: Since November 2022, conversational tools powered by generative artificial intelligence (GAI) have become integrated into academic and professional practice within the health care field. Objectives: To identify and quantify the prevalence of recommendations to authors regarding the use of GAI as issued by pharmaceutical journals, their publishers, and certain associations of peer-reviewed medical journals. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted to evaluate the recommendations regarding GAI use issued by 3 medical journal associations (the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the World Association of Medical Editors), 8 journal publishers (Springer, Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Wiley, Sage, Oxford Academic, BMJ, and Springer Nature), and 22 pharmaceutical journals. The presence or absence of specific recommendations was coded. Results: The analysis led to synthesis of 16 recommendations concerning use of GAI in scientific publishing, which were classified into 3 categories: reporting and transparency, authorship and accountability, and restrictions on use. The recommendations most often emphasized disclosure of GAI use in manuscripts and the prohibition of GAI as an author. Overall, 14 of the 22 pharmaceutical journals included one or more of the 16 recommendations. Among these 14 journals, the average proportion of included recommendations was 39% (standard deviation [SD] 12%). When recommendations suggested by publishers and journal associations were included in the analysis, as applicable, this proportion increased to 51% (SD 28%). Conclusions: Recommendations provided to authors about the use of GAI were highly variable. As such, this study highlights a lack of consensus on the integration of GAI within pharmaceutical journals, with many current guidelines being insufficient or outdated. The development of standardized and up-to-date guidelines is crucial to preserving the integrity of scientific 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.