ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2026
Prevalence and Content of Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies in Iranian Medical Science Journals.
Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rapid growth of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools has created new opportunities for scientific publishing while also introducing challenges related to research integrity and editorial ethics. Although awareness of these opportunities and challenges is increasing globally, there is limited evidence regarding how Iranian journals have addressed the use of AI through formal policies in scientific publishing. This study investigates the prevalence and content of AI use policies in Iranian medical science journals. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using medical journals listed in the Iranian Research Information System (IRIS). Of the 429 journals initially identified, inactive or inaccessible journals were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 411 journals. From August to October 2025, each journal website was manually examined using a structured checklist designed to assess 25 variables related to the existence and specific content of AI use policies. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods in Microsoft Excel and SPSS. Results: Among 411 journals, 117 (28.5%) had a publicly accessible AI use policy. The adoption of such policies was significantly more prevalent in English-language journals, those indexed in major international databases, and journals affiliated with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Among the journals with policies, the most commonly included elements were mandatory disclosure of AI use (99.1%), clarification of permission type (98.3%), and author responsibility (88.0%). In contrast, only a small proportion of journals specified the consequences of policy violations or provided guidance on AI-assisted translation. Conclusion: The findings indicate that AI policy development within Iranian medical science journals remains in its nascent stages. It is essential to establish clearer and more comprehensive AI usage policies to promote transparency, accountability, and responsible AI practices in 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.