Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing Emergency Medicine research by improving data analysis, systematic reviews, and clinical practices. However, its incorporation raises issues related to transparency, ethical considerations, and reproducibility. This study examines how prominent Emergency Medicine journals address these challenges and opportunities through their author guidelines and policies.
Methods: A cross-sectional review of the top 100 peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator, was conducted. Information was extracted from each journal’s "Instructions for Authors" to assess AI-related policies, including AI-specific reporting recommendations, authorship criteria, and the utilization of AI in manuscript creation and image generation. Correlational analyses were performed to explore the relationship between AI policies and journal characteristics.
Results: Among the 100 journals reviewed, 56% addressed AI use in their guidelines, with most journals prohibiting AI authorship but mandating the disclosure of AI involvement in submissions. AI-generated content was permitted by 21% of journals, while 19% authorized AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more inclined to include comprehensive AI policies, though significant inconsistencies and gaps in standardization remain.
Conclusion: Although numerous Emergency Medicine journals acknowledge AI's role in research, few support AI-specific reporting guidelines, hindering the standardization and transparency of AI usage. We advocate for the adoption of thorough guidelines to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI-driven progress.
Methods: A cross-sectional review of the top 100 peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator, was conducted. Information was extracted from each journal’s "Instructions for Authors" to assess AI-related policies, including AI-specific reporting recommendations, authorship criteria, and the utilization of AI in manuscript creation and image generation. Correlational analyses were performed to explore the relationship between AI policies and journal characteristics.
Results: Among the 100 journals reviewed, 56% addressed AI use in their guidelines, with most journals prohibiting AI authorship but mandating the disclosure of AI involvement in submissions. AI-generated content was permitted by 21% of journals, while 19% authorized AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more inclined to include comprehensive AI policies, though significant inconsistencies and gaps in standardization remain.
Conclusion: Although numerous Emergency Medicine journals acknowledge AI's role in research, few support AI-specific reporting guidelines, hindering the standardization and transparency of AI usage. We advocate for the adoption of thorough guidelines to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI-driven progress.
| 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
- emergency medicine
- transparency