Abstract
Introduction/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing Critical Care and ICU Medicine research by improving data analysis, systematic reviews, and clinical applications. However, its use raises concerns about transparency, ethical practices, and reproducibility. This study examines how leading Critical Care and ICU Medicine journals address these issues through their author instructions and policies.
Methods: A cross-sectional review was conducted on the top 100 peer-reviewed Critical Care and ICU Medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator. Data from each journal’s “Instructions for Authors” were analyzed to assess AI-related policies, including AI-specific reporting guidelines, authorship criteria, and the use of AI in manuscript writing and image creation. Correlational analyses were performed to explore the relationship between AI policies and journal characteristics.
Results: Of the 100 journals reviewed, 54% mentioned AI use in their instructions, with most prohibiting AI as authors but requiring disclosure of AI involvement. AI-generated content was accepted by 12% of journals, and 16% allowed AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to include comprehensive AI policies, though there remains a lack of standardization and detailed guidance.
Conclusion: Although many Critical Care and ICU Medicine journals acknowledge AI’s growing role in research, few promote AI-specific reporting guidelines, leading to inconsistencies in transparency and standardization. The adoption of comprehensive guidelines is recommended to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI-driven
Methods: A cross-sectional review was conducted on the top 100 peer-reviewed Critical Care and ICU Medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator. Data from each journal’s “Instructions for Authors” were analyzed to assess AI-related policies, including AI-specific reporting guidelines, authorship criteria, and the use of AI in manuscript writing and image creation. Correlational analyses were performed to explore the relationship between AI policies and journal characteristics.
Results: Of the 100 journals reviewed, 54% mentioned AI use in their instructions, with most prohibiting AI as authors but requiring disclosure of AI involvement. AI-generated content was accepted by 12% of journals, and 16% allowed AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to include comprehensive AI policies, though there remains a lack of standardization and detailed guidance.
Conclusion: Although many Critical Care and ICU Medicine journals acknowledge AI’s growing role in research, few promote AI-specific reporting guidelines, leading to inconsistencies in transparency and standardization. The adoption of comprehensive guidelines is recommended to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI-driven
| 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
- dc.subject.keywords reporting guidelines
- authorship
- transparency
- Critical Care and ICU medicine