PreprintCited by 14Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Attitudes and Perceptions of Biomedical Journal Editors-in-Chief Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Scholarly Publishing Process: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Open access
Ng, Jeremy Y., Krishnamurthy, Malvika, Deol, Gursimran, Al-Khafaji, Wid Al-Zahraa, Balaji, Vetrivel, Abebe, Magdalene, Adhvaryu, Jyot, Karrthik, Tejas +9 more·2025·Research Integrity and Peer Review

Preprint — published as 10.1186/s41073-025-00178-8 · Paper page

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are designed to mimic human conversations through text or speech, offering both opportunities and challenges in scholarly publishing. While journal policies of AICs are becoming more defined, there is still a limited understanding of how Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) of biomedical journals’ view these tools. This survey examined EiCs’ attitudes and perceptions, highlighting positive aspects, such as language and grammar support, and concerns regarding setup time, training requirements, and ethical considerations towards the use of AICs in the scholarly publishing process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, targeting EiCs of biomedical journals across multiple publishers. Of 3725 journals screened, 3381 eligible emails were identified through web scraping and manual verification. Survey invitations were sent to all identified EiCs. The survey remained open for 5 weeks, with three follow-up email reminders. Results: The survey had a response rate of 16.5% (510 total responses) and a completion rate of 87.0%. Most respondents were familiar with AI chatbots (66.7%), however, most had not utilized chatbots in their editorial work (83.7%) and many expressed interest in further training (64.4%). EiCs acknowledged benefits such as language and grammar support (70.8%) but expressed mixed attitudes on AIC roles in accelerating peer review. Perceptions included the initial time and resources required for setup (83.7%), training needs (83.9%), and ethical considerations (80.6%). Conclusions: This study found that EiCs have mixed attitudes toward AICs, with some EICs acknowledging their potential to enhance editorial efficiency, particularly in tasks like language editing, while others expressed concerns about the ethical implications, the time and resources required for implementation, and the need for additional training.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2025.05.26.25328101

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 31 · Cited by 14

Authors
Ng, J. Y., Krishnamurthy, M., Deol, G., Al-Khafaji, W. A.-Z., Balaji, V., Abebe, M., Adhvaryu, J., Karrthik, T., Mohanakanthan, P., Vellaparambil, A., Bouter, L. M., Haynes, R. B., Iorio, A., Lokker, C., Maisonneuve, H., Marušić, A., & Moher, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (DE)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • University of Split (HR)
Corresponding author
Ng, Jeremy Y.
Venue
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2025-05-27
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
19-19
ISSN
2058-8615 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414042524
Cited by
14
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 3
FWCI
52.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Integrity and Peer Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
AI chatbots, biomedical journals, scholarly publishing, editorial efficiency, AI ethics, AI training needs, attitudes toward AI, journal editorial policy

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