International Congress on
Peer Review and Scientific Publication

Jeremy Y. Ng,^1,2,3 Malvika Krishnamurthy,^2,3 Gursimran Deol,^2,3 Wid Al-Zahraa Al-Khafaji,^2,3 Vetrivel Balaji,⁴ Magdalene Abebe,^2,3 Jyot Adhvaryu,^2,3 Tejas Karrthik,^2,3 Pranavee Mohanakanthan,^2,3 Adharva Vellaparambil,^2,3 Lex M. Bouter,^5,6 R. Brian Haynes,⁷ Alfonso Iorio,^7,8 Cynthia Lokker,⁷ Hervé Maisonneuve,^9,10 Ana Marušić,¹¹ David Moher^1,12

Objective

This study aimed to examine the attitudes and perceptions of editors in chief (EICs) of biomedical journals regarding the integration of artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) into the scholarly publishing process. Prior research has explored AI use in publishing broadly, but limited data exist on EIC perspectives. Although AICs offer opportunities to streamline editorial tasks, such as plagiarism detection and language editing, they also introduce ethical, technical, and operational challenges. Understanding EIC perspectives is critical to shaping guidelines, policies, and training that align with the evolving role of AICs in scholarly publishing.

Design

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EICs of all biomedical journals, inclusive of medical, nursing, health sciences, dentistry, nursing, public health, and pharmacology and toxicology disciplines, published by Springer Nature (including BMC), Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Wiley, and Sage. Eligible journals were identified through a combination of automated web scraping and manual verification. EICs were invited to participate in an anonymous SurveyMonkey survey conducted over 5 weeks, which included 3 follow-up reminders, from July through August 2024. The survey covered familiarity with AICs, current use, perceived benefits and challenges, and anticipated future roles. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative responses were coded and thematically analyzed to identify key themes. Our protocol was registered¹ and followed the CHERRIES reporting guideline.²

Results

Of 3381 EICs contacted, 510 responded (15.1% response rate), with 505 eligible participants and a completion rate of 87.0%. Most were familiar with AICs (66.7% [325 of 487]) but had not used them in editorial workflows (83.7% [401 of 479]). Perceived benefits included enhanced language and grammar support (70.8% [308 of 435]) and plagiarism screening (67.3% [294 of 437]). However, respondents expressed concerns about initial setup and training (83.9% [360 of 429]), ethical risks (80.6% [345 of 428]), and technical reliability (75.2% [322 of 428]). While only 49.6% (240 of 484) of participants reported that their journal had formal AIC policies, 89.5% (419 of 468) of respondents supported training initiatives to promote ethical and effective use. Despite limited current adoption, 78.9% (370 of 469) believed AICs will play an important role in the future of scholarly publishing, and 77.2% (363 of 470) anticipated their significance in advancing scientific research. Themes identified through thematic analysis of open-ended questions included “no AI in authorship or peer review,” referring to EICs’ reporting of current journal and publisher policy on their use, and “ethical, integrity, and privacy concerns,” referring to EIC perceptions of challenges with the use of AICs in the scholarly publishing process. Our study manuscript has been preprinted.³

Conclusions

Biomedical journal EICs recognized the potential of AICs to enhance editorial processes but highlighted critical barriers, including ethical dilemmas, resource limitations, and insufficient policies and training. Structured interventions, including targeted training programs and robust ethical guidelines, are essential for addressing these challenges and ensuring responsible and effective integration of AICs into publishing workflows.

References

1. Ng JY, Krishnamurthy M, Balaji V, et al. 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 across multiple publishers. OSF Registries. August 10, 2024. Accessed July 2, 2025. https://osf.io/xt6f2

2. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34. doi:10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

3. Ng JY, Krishnamurthy M, Deol G, et al. 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. medRxiv. Preprint posted online May 27, 2025. doi:10.1101/2025.05.26.25328101

¹Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, jeremyyng.phd@gmail.com; ²Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; ³Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany; ⁴Department of Computing and Software, Faculty of Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; ⁵Department of Epidemiology and Data Sciences, Amsterdam Universities Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, ⁶Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; ⁷Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; ⁸Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; ⁹Consultant, Lyon, France; ¹⁰Scientific Committee, Institute of Research and Action on Fraud and Plagiarism in Academia (IRAFPA), Geneva, Switzerland; ¹¹Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health and Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; ¹²School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Lex M. Bouter, Ana Marušić, and David Moher are members of the Peer Review Congress Advisory Board but were not involved in the review or decision for this abstract. No other disclosures were reported.