Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping family medicine research by improving data analysis, systematic reviews, and clinical applications. However, its use also raises concerns about transparency, ethical practices, and reproducibility. This study explores how leading family medicine journals address these challenges and opportunities through their author instructions and policies.
Methods: A cross-sectional review was conducted on 47 peer-reviewed family medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator. Data was collected from each journal’s “Instructions for Authors” to assess AI-related policies, such as reporting guidelines, authorship rules, and the use of AI in preparing manuscripts or generating images. Correlations between AI policies and journal characteristics were also analyzed.
Results: Out of the 47 journals, 44.7% mentioned AI use in their author instructions. Of these, 40.4% prohibited AI authorship, and 42.6% required authors to disclose AI involvement in submissions. While 21.3% allowed AI-generated content, only 17% permitted AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to have detailed AI policies, though inconsistencies and gaps in guidance were evident.
Conclusion: Many family medicine journals recognize AI’s role in research, but few have adopted specific reporting guidelines. This lack of standardization limits the transparency and ethical use of AI. Adopting clear and comprehensive guidelines is essential to support ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI.
Methods: A cross-sectional review was conducted on 47 peer-reviewed family medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator. Data was collected from each journal’s “Instructions for Authors” to assess AI-related policies, such as reporting guidelines, authorship rules, and the use of AI in preparing manuscripts or generating images. Correlations between AI policies and journal characteristics were also analyzed.
Results: Out of the 47 journals, 44.7% mentioned AI use in their author instructions. Of these, 40.4% prohibited AI authorship, and 42.6% required authors to disclose AI involvement in submissions. While 21.3% allowed AI-generated content, only 17% permitted AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to have detailed AI policies, though inconsistencies and gaps in guidance were evident.
Conclusion: Many family medicine journals recognize AI’s role in research, but few have adopted specific reporting guidelines. This lack of standardization limits the transparency and ethical use of AI. Adopting clear and comprehensive guidelines is essential to support ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI.
| 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
- family medicine