Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The Journal of Medical Science (JMS) acknowledges the increasing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), including large language models (LLMs), in scientific research and publishing. While these tools may support authors in manuscript preparation, their use must be governed by principles of transparency, accountability, and scientific integrity. Accordingly, JMS requires full and accurate disclosure of any substantive use of AI and emphasizes that responsibility for all published content remains solely with the authors.
Manuscript Preparation
In the process of manuscript preparation, the use of GenAI tools must be transparently reported whenever such tools contribute to the generation of text, data, graphics, study design, or are used in data collection, analysis, or interpretation. Authors are required to provide a detailed and precise description of the AI tool’s role within the Materials and Methods section (specifying the name of the tool, its version (if available), and the exact purpose of its use), ensuring that its contribution can be properly understood and, where applicable, reproduced.
The Journal recommends the following standardized statement:
“During the preparation of this manuscript/study, the author(s) used [tool name, version] for the purposes of [description of use]. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.”
The use of AI tools exclusively for language editing, such as improving grammar, spelling, punctuation, structure, or formatting, requires disclosure in Acknowledgement section.
Author Responsibilities and Accountability
Regardless of the extent to which AI tools are used, authors retain full responsibility for the content of their manuscript. This includes responsibility for the originality, scientific validity, methodological soundness, and overall integrity of the work, including any elements generated or assisted by AI. Authors are expected to critically assess and verify all AI-generated material and ensure that it complies with the Journal’s ethical standards. In particular, the content must adhere to principles regarding the avoidance of plagiarism, the prohibition of data fabrication or falsification, the prevention of inappropriate image manipulation, and the respect for intellectual property rights.
The Editorial Office reserves the right to request additional information regarding the use of AI and to evaluate compliance with these requirements at any stage of the editorial process.
Authorship
AI tools, including LLMs, do not meet the established criteria for authorship and must not be listed as authors of a manuscript. As non-human entities, they cannot assume responsibility for the content, approve the final version of the manuscript, or be accountable for its accuracy and integrity.
Use of AI in Peer Review
The integrity and confidentiality of the peer review process are of paramount importance. Reviewers are therefore expected to prepare their evaluations independently and must not use GenAI tools to generate or substantially modify the content of their review reports. The use of such tools may compromise confidentiality and pose risks related to data protection and intellectual property.
Limited use of AI tools may be acceptable solely for the purpose of improving the linguistic quality of a review (e.g., grammar or stylistic refinement), provided that such use is explicitly disclosed at the time of submission. Under no circumstances may reviewers upload any part of a manuscript, including text, figures, tables, or data, or any related confidential communication into AI systems. Any breach of these principles will result in the rejection of the review report and may lead to further action.
Use of AI in Editorial Decision-Making
Editors, including Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, and Guest Editors, play a critical role in maintaining the scientific rigor and integrity of the publication process. In view of this responsibility, the use of AI tools in the evaluation of manuscripts or in editorial decision-making is strictly prohibited.
Editors must not upload manuscripts, in whole or in part, or any associated materials or communications into AI tools, as this would violate the confidentiality of the editorial process. Editorial decisions must be based solely on expert judgment, without reliance on AI-generated assessments.
