Repository logo

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

dc.contributor.authorNg, Jeremy Y.
dc.contributor.authorKrishnamurthy, Malvika
dc.contributor.authorDeol, Gursimran
dc.contributor.authorAl-Khafaji, Wid A.
dc.contributor.authorBalaji, Vetrivel
dc.contributor.authorAbebe, Magdalene
dc.contributor.authorAdhvaryu, Jyot
dc.contributor.authorKarrthik, Tejas
dc.contributor.authorMohanakanthan, Pranavee
dc.contributor.authorVellaparambil, Adharva
dc.contributor.authorBouter, Lex M.
dc.contributor.authorHaynes, R. B.
dc.contributor.authorIorio, Alfonso
dc.contributor.authorLokker, Cynthia
dc.contributor.authorMaisonneuve, Hervé
dc.contributor.authorMarušić, Ana
dc.contributor.authorMoher, David
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-09T03:14:21Z
dc.date.available2025-09-09T03:14:21Z
dc.date.issued2025-09-08
dc.date.updated2025-09-09T03:14:22Z
dc.description.abstractAbstract 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 five 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 AIs (66.7%), however, most had not utilized AICs 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.
dc.identifier.citationResearch Integrity and Peer Review. 2025 Sep 08;10(1):19
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00178-8
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10393/50842
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.titleAttitudes and perceptions of biomedical journal editors in chief towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the scholarly publishing process: a cross-sectional survey
dc.typeJournal Article

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail ImageThumbnail Image
Name:
41073_2025_Article_178.pdf
Size:
2.01 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail ImageThumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.26 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: