ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Artificial intelligence policies in neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in neurology research and scientific publishing. However, concerns regarding authorship, transparency, and ethical oversight have prompted journals to establish policies governing AI use. The objective of this study was to characterize the presence and content of AI-related author-guideline policies across the top 100 neurology journals and to evaluate their alignment with established editorial frameworks and AI-specific reporting guidelines. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the top 100 neurology journals. Data were extracted from each journal's Instructions for Authors and included policies regarding AI use, disclosure requirements, authorship restrictions, and permissions for AI-assisted writing, AI-generated content, and AI-generated images. References to ethical frameworks and AI-specific reporting guidelines were also recorded. Associations between AI policies and journal metrics were assessed. Results: Of the 100 journals examined, 97 included an AI-related policy. Nearly all journals prohibited AI authorship (97%) and required disclosure of AI use (96%). AI-assisted writing was widely permitted (93%), whereas permissions for AI-generated content (77%) and AI-generated images (37%) were more variable. Endorsement of AI-specific reporting guidelines was rare, with only one journal referencing CONSORT-AI or SPIRIT-AI. Few journals cited established ethical frameworks, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; 14%), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; 26%), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME; 10%). No significant correlations were identified between AI-related policies and journal metrics. Discussion: AI-related policies are common among neurology journals but remain heterogeneous and inconsistently aligned with established ethical and methodological standards. These findings highlight opportunities to strengthen transparency and research integrity as AI becomes increasingly integrated into neurological science. Neurology journals should consider adopting standardized requirements for AI-use disclosure and explicitly endorsing AI-specific reporting frameworks to harmonize expectations and improve reproducibility.
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.