@article{YI2025, 
author = {Yaosen YI},
title = {Analysis and Recommendations for Ethical Policies on Artificial Intelligence Generated Content in Chinese Medical Journals},
year = {2025},
journal = {Science-Technology & Publication},
volume = {44},
number = {10},
pages = {82-93},
keywords = {artificial intelligence-generated content, medical research, academic publishing, scholarly communication, research ethics, medical journals},
url = {https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.16510/j.cnki.kjycb.20250930.002},
doi = {10.16510/j.cnki.kjycb.20250930.002},
abstract = {In recent years, large models of artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) have been extensively utilized in topic selection, editorial processes, and academic dissemination, facilitating the development of an intelligent publishing model for scientific journals and significantly improving the efficiency of academic journal editing, publishing, and multimedia communication. However, the application of AIGC remains characterized with ambiguities, with frequent occurrences of academic misconduct and ethical risks stemming from inappropriate application. This paper investigates the AIGC-related publishing ethics policies of 160 Chinese medical journals included in the World Journal Clout Index (WJCI) of Scientific and Technological Periodicals (2023 edition). It analyzes the AIGC application policies pertaining to authors, editors/peer reviewers, and journals/publishers in Chinese medical journals, and proposes a framework and ethical policy recommendations for AIGC application in medical scientific research, manuscript writing, academic publishing, and dissemination. By integrating AIGC application policies and guidelines from domestic and international publishers and institutions, we propose an ethical framework and policy recommendations for AIGC application across these domains. The findings reveal that a total of 61 medical journals (38.13%) have explicitly addressed AIGC application policies in their publication ethics documents, mainly focusing on (67.21%) the process of paper writing and review; a total of 99 journals (61.87%) lack any AIGC application policies, highlighting a significant gap in the prevalence and enforcement of AIGC ethics standards and management measures in Chinese medical journals. While Chinese medical journals with declared AIGC application policies have reached a basic consensus on the boundaries of AIGC application for authors, variations persist in the AIGC application policies concerning editors/peer reviewers/journal publishers, necessitating further refinement. Consequently, this paper synthesizes and delineates the application scenarios and application frameworks of AIGC technology across the stages of medical scientific research, manuscript writing, academic publishing, and dissemination, aligned with the realities of Chinese medical journals. In response to the issue of non-uniformity in disclosure and declaration policies for AIGC applications, Chinese medical journals should clearly define the application scenarios and application boundaries of AIGC for different stakeholders, regularly organize AIGC training and exchange discussions, and refine policies concerning AIGC application and disclosure. Establishing a review system for AIGC application standards, dynamic oversight, and a tiered punishment mechanism for improper application will foster the standardized AIGC implementation. Future efforts should explore more nuanced application scenarios and application boundaries of AIGC, tailored to the specific characteristics of various medical disciplines and the demands of regulatory entities, to facilitate the standardized integration of AIGC within the realms of medical research, academic publishing, and dissemination.}
}