Document Type
Article
Version Deposited
Published Version
Publication Date
7-3-2025
Publication Title
BMC Medical Ethics
DOI
10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) pose novel ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing. Although AI-related policies are emerging in many disciplines, little is known about the extent and clarity of AI guidance in bioethics and health humanities journals.
METHODS: A search of publicly available journal lists from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, Health Humanities Consortium, and Association for Medical Humanities was supplemented with Google Scholar's top 20 bioethics journals ranked by h5-index. This yielded 54 unique journals, of which 50 remained after excluding those without a functional website or recent publications. AI policies were reviewed at the journal and publisher levels were assessed via website review, and editors were contacted for clarification when required. Data extraction was conducted by one author and independently verified by two additional researchers to ensure accuracy.
RESULTS: Of the 50 journals analyzed, only 8 (16%) had a clear AI policy, while 27 (54%) were published by a publisher with an identifiable AI policy. Publisher AI policy statements were favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. Five (10%) of the 8 journals with a clear AI policy explicitly prohibited AI-generated text in submissions. The remaining 15 (30%) journals did not have a publicly available AI policy. Ten of these 15 journals confirmed an absence of any formal AI policy, and seven indicated that discussion to develop guidelines was ongoing.
CONCLUSION: The adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently inconsistent. Some journals explicitly ban AI-generated text, whereas others permit AI-assisted writing, with publisher policies being favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. The lack of standardized AI guidelines underscores the need for further discussion to ensure the ethical and responsible integration of AI in academic publishing.
Recommended Citation
Bobier, Christopher; Rodger, Daniel; and Hurst, Daniel, "Artificial Intelligence Policies in Bioethics and Health Humanities: A Comparative Analysis of Publishers and Journals" (2025). Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine Departmental Research. 303.
https://rdw.rowan.edu/som_facpub/303
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Published Citation
Bobier, C., Rodger, D. & Hurst, D. Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals. BMC Med Ethics 26, 79 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9
Included in
Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Medical Humanities Commons, Publishing Commons