Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals
These videos have been matched automatically. Contact us if they are not relevant.
These videos have been matched automatically. Contact us if they are not relevant.
View abstract on PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.Artificial intelligence (AI) policies in bioethics and health humanities journals are inconsistent. While some journals ban AI-generated text, many rely on publisher guidelines, highlighting a need for standardized AI integration in scholarly publishing.
Area Of Science
- Scholarly Publishing
- Bioethics
- Health Humanities
- Artificial Intelligence
Background
- Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing.
- Existing AI-related policies vary across disciplines, with limited understanding of their application in bioethics and health humanities.
- This study investigates the current landscape of AI policies within these specific academic fields.
Purpose Of The Study
- To assess the extent and clarity of artificial intelligence (AI) policies in bioethics and health humanities journals.
- To determine the prevalence of explicit AI usage guidelines at both journal and publisher levels.
- To identify inconsistencies and areas needing standardization in AI policy adoption.
Main Methods
- A comprehensive search identified 50 relevant journals from key bioethics and health humanities societies and Google Scholar rankings.
- AI policies were systematically reviewed at the journal and publisher levels through website analysis.
- Journal editors were contacted for clarification when policy information was ambiguous or absent.
Main Results
- Only 16% of analyzed journals (8 out of 50) possessed a clear, standalone AI policy.
- A majority of journals (54%) were published by entities with an identifiable AI policy, generally favorable to AI-assisted submissions.
- Five journals (10%) explicitly prohibited AI-generated text, while 30% lacked any publicly available AI policy, with some indicating ongoing policy development.
Conclusions
- The adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently fragmented and inconsistent.
- Publisher-level policies often guide AI manuscript consideration, but journal-specific rules vary significantly.
- The absence of standardized AI guidelines necessitates further discourse to ensure ethical and responsible AI integration in academic publishing.
These videos have been matched automatically. Contact us if they are not relevant.
These videos have been matched automatically. Contact us if they are not relevant.