Wenqiao Huang , Yating Liang , Xianghui Wei , Yi Du
{"title":"眼科期刊生成式人工智能指南：综合分析。","authors":"Wenqiao Huang , Yating Liang , Xianghui Wei , Yi Du","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.12.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>A total of 140 ophthalmology journals listed in the Scimago Journal and Country Rankings, regardless of language or origin.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>The content of GAI guidelines from the websites of the 140 ophthalmology journals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"271 ","pages":"Pages 445-454"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ophthalmology Journals’ Guidelines on Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Wenqiao Huang , Yating Liang , Xianghui Wei , Yi Du\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.12.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>A total of 140 ophthalmology journals listed in the Scimago Journal and Country Rankings, regardless of language or origin.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>The content of GAI guidelines from the websites of the 140 ophthalmology journals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"271 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 445-454\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939424005889\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939424005889","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ophthalmology Journals’ Guidelines on Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Analysis
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.
期刊介绍：
The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect.
The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports.
Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
