J Korean Med Sci.  2025 Jun;40(23):e187. 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187.

Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies

• Yoo JH

• KMID: 2568652
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187

Abstract

The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming the landscape of medical writing and publishing. In response, major academic organizations and high-impact journals have released guidelines addressing core ethical concerns, including authorship qualification, disclosure of AI use, and the attribution of accountability. This review analyzes and compares key statements from several international medical or scientific editors’ organizations along with submission policies of major leading journals. It also evaluates the AI usage policy of the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS), which presents one of the most specific frameworks among Korean journals, and offers suggestions for refinement. While most journals prohibit listing AI tools as authors, their stance on AI-assisted writing varies. JKMS aligns with international norms by prohibiting AI authorship and recommending that authors explicitly report the tool name, prompt, purpose, and scope of AI use. This policy demonstrates a flexible but principled approach to AI integration. The limitations of AI detection tools are also discussed. These tools often struggle with accuracy and bias, with known tendencies to misclassify human-written content as AI-generated. As such, sole reliance on detection tools is insufficient for editorial decisions. Instead, fostering a culture of ethical authorship and responsible disclosure remains essential. This review highlights the need for balanced policies that promote transparency without impeding innovation. By clarifying disclosure expectations and reinforcing human accountability, journals can guide the ethical use of AI in scientific writing and maintain the integrity of scholarly communication.

Keyword

Generative AI; ChatGPT; Authorship; Writing; Publishing

Reference

1. Yin S, Huang S, Xue P, Xu Z, Lian Z, Ye C, et al. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals. BMC Med. 2025; 23(1):77. PMID: 39934830.

2. Li ZQ, Xu HL, Cao HJ, Liu ZL, Fei YT, Liu JP. Use of artificial intelligence in peer review among top 100 medical journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(12):e2448609. PMID: 39625725.

3. Dergaa I, Ben Saad H, Glenn JM, Ben Aissa M, Taheri M, Swed S, et al. A thorough examination of ChatGPT-3.5 potential applications in medical writing: a preliminary study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(40):e39757. PMID: 39465713.

4. Ho WLJ, Koussayer B, Sujka J. ChatGPT: friend or foe in medical writing? An example of how ChatGPT can be utilized in writing case reports. Surg Pract Sci. 2023; 14:100185. PMID: 39845855.

5. Lin KC, Chen TA, Lin MH, Chen YC, Chen TJ. Integration and assessment of ChatGPT in medical case reporting: a multifaceted approach. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2024; 14(4):888–901.

6. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña JF, et al. Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2024; 40(1):11–13. PMID: 38112256.

7. Spick M, Jones AN, Fernandes M, Moran L, et al. Hundreds of similar papers using NHANES data are published each year: is this a reproducibility success story or an emerging research paper mill? PLoS Biol. 2024; 22(5):e3003152.

8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated 2023. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ .

9. Committee on Publication Ethics Council. COPE position - Authorship and AI - English. Updated 2023. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools .

10. New England Journal of Medicine. Editorial policies: Use of AI-assisted technologies. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies .

11. Bagenal J, Biamis C, Boillot M, Brierley R, Chew M, Dehnel T, et al. Generative AI: ensuring transparency and emphasising human intelligence and accountability. Lancet. 2024; 404(10468):2142–2143. PMID: 39615987.

12. Nature Portfolio. Artificial intelligence (AI). Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai .

13. Science. Science journals: editorial policies. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies#image-text .

14. British Medical Journal Author Hub. AI use. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://authors.bmj.com/policies/ai-use/ .

15. British Medical Journal. Authorship & contributorship. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission/authorship-contributorship .

16. Annals of Internal Medicine. Information for authors: authorship. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/authors5 .

17. Flanagin A, Kendall-Taylor J, Bibbins-Domingo K. Guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors on use of AI, language models, and chatbots. JAMA. 2023; 330(8):702–703. PMID: 37498593.

18. Cell. Structure / Information for authors / Journal policies. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.cell.com/structure/information-for-authors/journal-policies .

19. Journal of Korean Medical Science. Information for contributors; XI. DISCLOSURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGY. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://jkms.org/index.php?main=instruction .

20. Yonsei Medical Journal. Authorship. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://eymj.org/index.php?body=authorship .

21. Korean Journal of Radiology. Publication instruction for authors. Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.kjronline.org/document/instruction.shtml .

22. Kocak Z. Publication ethics in the era of artificial intelligence. J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(33):e249. PMID: 39189714.

23. Resnik DB, Hosseini M. Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: when should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? Account Res. 2025.

24. Gillham J. GPTZero AI content detection review – GPT zero review. Updated 2024. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://originality.ai/blog/gptzero-ai-content-detection-review .

25. GPTZero. How do I interpret burstiness or perplexity? Updated 2025. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://support.gptzero.me/hc/en-us/articles/15130070230551-How-do-I-interpret-burstiness-or-perplexity .

26. Liang W, Yuksekgonul M, Mao Y, Wu E, Zou J. GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns (N Y). 2023; 4(7):100779. PMID: 37521038.

27. Wired. The AI detection arms race is on. Updated 2023. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-detection-chat-gpt-college-students/ .

28. Open AI. New AI classifier for indicating AI-written text. Updated 2023. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://openai.com/index/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text .

29. Ars Technica. OpenAI discontinues its AI writing detector due to “low rate of accuracy”. Updated 2023. Accessed June 1, 2025. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/openai-discontinues-its-ai-writing-detector-due-to-low-rate-of-accuracy/ .