Ophthalmology Journals’ Guidelines on Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Analysis

Wenqiao Huang · Yi Du

11 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic integrity and plagiarism Academic Writing and Publishing Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Abstract

PURPOSE: The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) into scientific research and academic writing has generated considerable controversy. Currently, standards for using GAI in academic medicine remain undefined. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the guidance provided for authors regarding the use of GAI in ophthalmology scientific journals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 140 ophthalmology journals listed in the Scimago Journal and Country Rankings, regardless of language or origin. METHODS: We systematically searched and screened the 140 ophthalmology journals' websites on October 19 and 20, 2024, and conducted updates on November 19 and 20, 2024. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The content of GAI guidelines from the websites of the 140 ophthalmology journals. RESULTS: Of 140 journals reviewed, 96 (69%) provide explicit guidelines for authors regarding the use of GAI. Among these, nearly all journals agree on 3 key points: (1) 94 journals (98%) have established specific guidelines prohibiting GAI from being listed as an author; (2) 94 journals (98%) emphasize that human authors are responsible for the outputs generated by GAI tools; and (3) all 96 journals require authors to disclose any use of GAI. In addition, 20 journals (21%) specify that their guidelines pertain solely to the writing process with GAI. Furthermore, 92 journals (66%) have developed guidelines concerning GAI-generated images, with 63 journals (68%) permitting their use and 29 (32%) prohibiting them. Among those that prohibit GAI images, 27 journals (93%) allow their use under specific conditions. CONCLUSION: Although there is considerable ethical consensus among ophthalmology journals regarding the use of GAI, notable variations exist in terms of permissible use and disclosure practices. Establishing standardized guidelines is essential to safeguard the originality and integrity of scientific research. Researchers must uphold high standards of academic ethics and integrity when using GAI.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

References

2023Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge 2024Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis 2023ChatGPT: standard reporting guidelines for responsible use 2024ChatGPT’s ability to generate realistic experimental images poses a new challenge to academic integrity 2023Daily briefing: ChatGPT listed as author on research papers 2023Development of the ChatGPT, Generative Artificial Intelligence and Natural Large Language Models for Accountable Reporting and Use (CANGARU) Guidelines 2024Rethinking research and generative artificial intelligence

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.