Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery
Published on: May 6, 2020
Prevalence and Characteristics of Generative Artificial Intelligence Policies in Vascular Surgery Journals: A
Fanru Shen1, Victor F A Almeida2, John Y Ha3
1Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
Background:
The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into academic publishing presents new opportunities and ethical challenges. Transparent editorial oversight is essential, yet the extent of GenAI policy adoption among vascular surgery journals remains unclear.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional review of vascular surgery journals indexed in the 2024 Scimago Journal Rank and Google Scholar Metrics. Eligible journals were active, peer-reviewed titles regularly publishing vascular surgery research. As of June 12, 2025, 2 independent reviewers assessed author instructions, journal websites, and publisher policies for GenAI-related guidance. Extracted variables included permitted GenAI applications (e.g., language editing, image generation), disclosure requirements, authorship restrictions, naming of specific tools, and human accountability clauses. Journal characteristics-geographic origin, Scimago Journal Rank quartile, and H-index-were also recorded. Descriptive statistics and Welch's t-tests were used for analysis.
Results:
Of 25 journals evaluated, 18 (72%) had explicit GenAI editorial policies. All prohibited attributing authorship to artificial intelligence (AI) tools and emphasized human responsibility. Nineteen journals (76%) required disclosure of GenAI use, but only 14 (56%) specified disclosure location. Thirteen (52%) addressed AI-generated images. Journals permitting GenAI-assisted language editing had significantly higher H-indices (70.2 vs. 20.7; P = 0.0167). Scimago Journal Rank Q1/Q2 journals demonstrated more comprehensive policies than lower-tier journals (6.8 vs. 4.0 elements; P = 0.0094). US- and UK-based journals led in policy specificity.
Conclusion:
While GenAI policies are increasingly present in vascular surgery journals, inconsistencies persist. Standardized, enforceable editorial guidance is needed to ensure ethical and transparent integration of GenAI into scholarly publishing.
