Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing neurology research by advancing data analysis, systematic reviews, and clinical applications. However, its integration introduces concerns around transparency, ethical practices, and reproducibility. This study explores how leading neurology journals address these issues in their author guidelines and policies.
Methods: A cross-sectional review was conducted of the top 100 peer-reviewed neurology journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator. Data were extracted from each journal’s "Instructions for Authors" to evaluate AI-related policies, including recommendations for AI usage, authorship criteria, and the use of AI in manuscript development and image creation. Correlational analyses were performed to examine associations between AI policies and journal characteristics.
Results: Of the 100 journals reviewed, 96% referenced AI use in their author instructions. The majority prohibited AI authorship but required authors to disclose AI involvement in research or manuscript preparation. AI-generated content was allowed by 77% of journals, while 50% approved the use of AIgenerated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to include specific AI guidelines, but significant inconsistencies and gaps in policy remain.
Conclusion: Although many neurology journals acknowledge AI’s growing role in research, few offer robust AI-specific reporting guidelines, limiting clarity and uniformity. We recommend the creation of comprehensive AI guidelines to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the era of AIdriven innovation.
Methods: A cross-sectional review was conducted of the top 100 peer-reviewed neurology journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator. Data were extracted from each journal’s "Instructions for Authors" to evaluate AI-related policies, including recommendations for AI usage, authorship criteria, and the use of AI in manuscript development and image creation. Correlational analyses were performed to examine associations between AI policies and journal characteristics.
Results: Of the 100 journals reviewed, 96% referenced AI use in their author instructions. The majority prohibited AI authorship but required authors to disclose AI involvement in research or manuscript preparation. AI-generated content was allowed by 77% of journals, while 50% approved the use of AIgenerated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to include specific AI guidelines, but significant inconsistencies and gaps in policy remain.
Conclusion: Although many neurology journals acknowledge AI’s growing role in research, few offer robust AI-specific reporting guidelines, limiting clarity and uniformity. We recommend the creation of comprehensive AI guidelines to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the era of AIdriven innovation.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| State | Published - 14 Feb 2025 |
| Event | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Week 2025 - Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, United States Duration: 10 Feb 2025 → 14 Feb 2025 https://medicine.okstate.edu/research/research_days.html |
Conference
| Conference | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Week 2025 |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | United States |
| City | Tulsa |
| Period | 10/02/25 → 14/02/25 |
| Internet address |
Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence
- reporting guidelines
- authorship
- transparency
- neurology