Artificial Intelligence Tools in Scholarly Publishing: Guidance for Academic Medicine Authors.

With OpenAI’s release of ChatGPT in November 2022, we watched along with the rest of the world as the possibilities—and perils—of this exciting new technology emerged. Almost immediately, it was clear that ChatGPT would be used broadly in the academic community, prompting discussion about the potential role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in scholarly publishing. In early 2023, publishers and publishing advisory groups began issuing statements and policies related to the use of AI tools in scholarly publications. While the Science family of journals has a policy prohibiting the use of AI tools,1 other journals’ policies2,3 favor clear disclosure over outright bans. There is one point on which all publishers and publishing advisory groups align: Chatbots do not qualify for authorship. The Committee on Publication Ethics4 and the World Association of Medical Editors5 note that, since chatbots cannot take responsibility for the published work and do not meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship,6 they cannot be credited as authors. We agree. A Principle-Driven Approach While ChatGPT and other chatbots may not be listed as authors of manuscripts submitted to Academic Medicine, our journal has taken a principle-driven approach to authors’ use of AI tools in their work. We ask that authors adhere to the following principles, which are reflected in our submission requirements and in Academic Medicine’s policies and guidelines related to AI tools. Accountability Academic Medicine adheres to the ethical and professional standards articulated by the ICMJE. Authors are accountable for the quality and integrity of their scholarship.7,8 Chatbots are not eligible for designation as an author. Individuals are eligible for authorship if they fulfill 4 criteria6 in the development of a scholarly work. To be recognized as an author, an individual will have contributed substantively to the conception or design of the work or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; will have participated in the drafting or revising of the scholarly work for important intellectual content; will have given final approval for the version of the scholarly work to be published; and will have agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that the work has been conducted and presented in a manner that adheres to professionalism expectations and academic standards. Accountability as an author also entails that the individual is responsible for “ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”6 Disclosure We have added a question to our submission form that requires authors to disclose whether they have used AI in the writing or development of their manuscripts. Our intention is to provide authors a clear mechanism for disclosure; editorial decisions will not be based on the answer to this question. When authors have relied on AI in the creation of their scholarship, the authors should add a brief description of which AI tools were used and how they were used, in the “other disclosures” section of the required structured disclosures appearing at the end of the manuscript. Transparency AI tools are just that—tools. As with any other tool that is used to conduct or enhance scholarship, such as specialized statistical software, the use of AI tools must be described in the text of the manuscript. In a Research Report or Review, such a description would appear in the Method section as part of the methodology of the work. This description is necessary both for readers to evaluate the appropriateness of the approach in light of the nature and scope of the research question and also for the replicability of the research or review. In other types of articles, such as Innovation Reports, the description should be incorporated to best suit the structure of the article. Evolution We acknowledge that AI tools will quickly evolve. In March 2023, just 4 months after the release of ChatGPT, OpenAI introduced GPT-4,9 the newest version of its language model system, which addresses some of the limitations of ChatGPT. Google has released Bard,10 emphasizing it is “an experiment,” and Microsoft’s Bing search engine is powered by AI,11 demonstrating that well-established research tools may begin to incorporate AI more substantially. All of these tools have limitations that will affect accuracy, rigor, and integrity in publishing, and authors assume the risks of these tools when using them. For example, recent reports have drawn attention to the fact that ChatGPT fabricates, or “hallucinates,” citations.12 A year from now, the landscape may look much different. We commit to evolving our policies and practices to align with the academic standards of our field. A New Policy Guided by the principles above, we have developed a new policy for authors who wish to use AI tools in work submitted to Academic Medicine: The use of AI tools must be disclosed at the time of submission as well as in the “other disclosures” section of the manuscript’s structured disclosures. In addition, authors must include in the body of the manuscript a description of how they used AI tools in their work and which tools they used. In Research Reports or Reviews, this description would appear in the Method section; in other types of articles, it should be incorporated to best suit the structure of the article. AI tools may not be listed or designated as authors. Authors are accountable for the quality and integrity of their scholarly work. Authors of the manuscript are fully responsible for the entirety of its contents, including those parts produced by an AI tool. This policy is available online in our Complete Instructions for Authors13 and will be updated as needed based on the evolution of the field. As always, we welcome your questions and feedback, and we look forward to exploring this topic further in the pages of our journal.