Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in the Editorial and Peer Review Process: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Journal Editors

BackgroundArtificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are increasingly being integrated into scholarly publishing, with the potential to automate routine editorial tasks and streamline workflows. In traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) publishing, editorial and peer review processes can be particularly complex due to diverse methodologies and culturally embedded knowledge systems, presenting unique opportunities and challenges for AIC adoption. MethodsAn anonymous, online cross-sectional survey was distributed to the editorial board members of 115 TCIM journals. The survey assessed familiarity and current use of AICs, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical concerns, and anticipated future roles in editorial workflows. ResultsOf 5119 invitations, 217 eligible participants completed the survey. While approximately 70% of respondents reported familiarity with AI tools, over 60% had never used AICs for editorial tasks. Editors expressed strongest support for text-focused applications, such as grammar and language checks (81.0%) and plagiarism/ethical screening (67.4%). Most respondents (82.8%) believed that AICs would be important or very important to the future of scholarly publishing; however, the majority (65.3%) reported that their journals lacked AI-specific policies and training programs to guide editors and peer reviewers. ConclusionsMost TCIM editors believe that AICs have potential to support routine editorial functions but also have limited adoption into editorial and peer review processes due to practical, ethical, and institutional barriers. Additional training and guidance are warranted by journals to direct responsible and ethical use if AICs are to be adopted in TCIM academic publishing.