The blurred threshold of AI-use disclosure: International journal editor expectations of sufficiency and necessity
Lingard, L.; Driessen, E.; Oswald, K.
Show abstract
PurposeGenerative AI is a powerful resource for health professions education (HPE) researchers publishing their work. However, questions remain about its use and guidance about disclosure is inconsistent. This situation is both confusing and potentially perilous for researchers, who risk their reputations if they disclose AI use inappropriately. This study explores HPE and general medical journal editors experiences and expectations of AI-use disclosure, in order to assist journals to clarify expectations and authors to satisfy them. MethodsIn this descriptive qualitative study, journal editors were interviewed between January 6, 2025, and May 7, 2025 using an online Zoom platform. Eligible participants were identified through journal webpages and snowball sampling. A purposive sampling strategy prioritized HPE research journals and included a limited sample of general medical research journals to explore transferability. Data collection and thematic analysis proceeded iteratively. ResultsEighteen participants, including 9 chief editors and 9 associate/deputy editors were interviewed. Fourteen participants worked in HPE journals, four in general medical journals. The analysis revealed 4 key themes: 1) the basics of disclosure, made up of content and location expectations shared by participants; 2) the sufficiency threshold, regarding how much detail to include; 3) the necessity threshold, regarding which circumstances require disclosure; and 4) the factors blurring these two thresholds, which included the speed of change, the co-construction of disclosure standards, and the uneasy fit of scientific principles such as reproducibility and transparency with the AI-use context. ConclusionsWhile editors shared basic disclosure expectations, they also provided insight into blurred thresholds of sufficiency and necessity that complicate disclosure. By attending to these thresholds and the factors blurring them, and by using these insights to apply recent AI-use and disclosure frameworks, journals can develop enhance their guidelines, which will assist authors in HPE in navigating the shifting norms of AI-use disclosure.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints 96%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 96%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals 95%
- Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review 93%
- Evidence of Unreliable Data and Poor Data Provenance in Clinical Prediction Model Research and Clinical Practice 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 92%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.