BackgroundThe rapid adoption of AI tools in academic research has created uncertainty about appropriate use in manuscript preparation, including in academic physiotherapy and physical therapy where clear guidance is essential for maintaining research integrity.ObjectivesThis review aimed to assess the availability and content of AI policies across physiotherapy and physical therapy journals and their publishers.MethodsWe identified physiotherapy and physical therapy journals through searches of SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Google Scholar, and Google searches. After screening for English language, functioning webpages, recent publications, and exclusion of predatory journals, 32 journals were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed journal homepages, author guidelines, submission policies, and editorial policies for AI-related statements at both journal and publisher levels between 21-25 July 2025.ResultsOf 32 journals assessed, 24 (75.0%) had publicly available AI policies. Of these, 13 (54.2%) were at the journal level and 11 (45.8%) at the publisher level. Eight journals (25.0%) had no identifiable public AI policy. All identified policies were permissive towards AI use (favourable to considering manuscripts that have received AI assistance) but varied in requirements across five key areas: disclosure of AI use, acceptable AI tasks, AI authorship considerations, author responsibility, and peer review guidelines.ConclusionWhile most physiotherapy and physical therapy journals have established AI policies, significant gaps remain in accessibility and standardisation. The fragmented governance landscape, characterised by inconsistent policy locations and requirements, creates confusion for authors and might compromise research integrity. Standardised, easily accessible AI policies are needed to enable researchers to harness AI's potential while maintaining transparency and scientific rigour.
原文链接
分享
引用
