Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots
Open accessAbstract
Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
JAMA has introduced specific instructions on using AI in peer review and recommended using it as an assistant.
“Accordingly, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has introduced specific instructions on using AI in peer review and recommended using it as an assistant.42”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
The peer-review guidance says JAMA introduced instructions for reviewers on responsible AI use. It permits an AI tool to be used as a resource if confidentiality is protected and its use is disclosed, but it does not recommend that reviewers use AI as an assistant. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany journals, organizations, and publishers have started to provide GAI usage guidelines for authors and reviewers and made continuous updates.
“In response, many journals, organizations, and publishers have started to provide GAI usage guidelines for authors and reviewers and made continuous updates [30–32].”
From Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
The main text (page not provided) says JAMA and JAMA Network journals issued guidance for authors, extended it to peer reviewers, and will continue to provide guidance. It also identifies guidance from ICMJE and COPE. It does not establish that many publishers issued such guidelines or that these groups have made continuous updates; continued guidance is stated as an intention. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSome journals specified conditions in which GAI can be used, such as requiring reviewers to obtain permission from authors and editors, confirming that manuscripts shall not be uploaded as training data, and providing authors with the choice to opt for or against a GAI-assisted review process.
“Some journals specified conditions in which GAI can be used. For example, they required reviewers to obtain permission from authors and editors, to confirm that manuscripts shall not be uploaded as training data, and provide authors with the choice to opt for or against a GAI-assisted review process [30, 32].”
From Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
The peer-reviewer instructions (page not supplied) allow AI use during review only when it does not violate confidentiality rules and require reviewers to disclose that use. They do not describe permission from authors and editors, confirmation that manuscripts will not become training data, or an author opt-in or opt-out. Instead, they prohibit entering any part of a manuscript or review into a chatbot or similar tool. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredJAMA prohibits AI as authors, requires explicit disclosure of AI-generated text or images, and restricts peer reviewers from using AI tools.
“Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) maintains that generative AI tools cannot replace the creativity, judgment, and ethical responsibility required of human authors. Accordingly, these tools cannot be credited as authors, and the use of AI-generated text or images must be explicitly disclosed.”
From Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 143
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- JAMA. Instructions for Authors. JAMA. Updated May 23, 2023. Accessed May 25, 2023. https:// jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/ instructions-for-authors
- Authors
- Flanagin, A., Kendall-Taylor, J., & Bibbins-Domingo, K.
- Affiliations
- Ms Flanagin is Executive Managing Editor, Mr Kendall-Taylor is Director of Editorial Systems, and Dr Bibbins-Domingo is Editor in Chief, JAMA and the JAMA Network
- Corresponding author
- Flanagin, Annette
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2023-08-22
- Volume
- 330
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 702
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W4385294514
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 12 · 2020: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, large language models, chatbots, authorship attribution, peer review, medical knowledge, research ethics
- MeSH terms
- Language, Publications, Peer Review, Research, Editorial Policies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
