Objectives To determine the extent and content of academic publishers’ and scientific journals’ guidance for authors on the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). Design Cross sectional, bibliometric study. Setting Websites of academic publishers and scientific journals, screened on 19-20 May 2023, with the search updated on 8-9 October 2023. Participants Top 100 largest academic publishers and top 100 highly ranked scientific journals, regardless of subject, language, or country of origin. Publishers were identified by the total number of journals in their portfolio, and journals were identified through the Scimago journal rank using the Hirsch index (H index) as an indicator of journal productivity and impact. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were the content of GAI guidelines listed on the websites of the top 100 academic publishers and scientific journals, and the consistency of guidance between the publishers and their affiliated journals. Results Among the top 100 largest publishers, 24% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 15 (63%) were among the top 25 publishers. Among the top 100 highly ranked journals, 87% provided guidance on GAI. Of the publishers and journals with guidelines, the inclusion of GAI as an author was prohibited in 96% and 98%, respectively. Only one journal (1%) explicitly prohibited the use of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, and two (8%) publishers and 19 (22%) journals indicated that their guidelines exclusively applied to the writing process. When disclosing the use of GAI, 75% of publishers and 43% of journals included specific disclosure criteria. Where to disclose the use of GAI varied, including in the methods or acknowledgments, in the cover letter, or in a new section. Variability was also found in how to access GAI guidelines shared between journals and publishers. GAI guidelines in 12 journals directly conflicted with those developed by the publishers. The guidelines developed by top medical journals were broadly similar to those of academic journals. Conclusions Guidelines by some top publishers and journals on the use of GAI by authors are lacking. Among those that provided guidelines, the allowable uses of GAI and how it should be disclosed varied substantially, with this heterogeneity persisting in some instances among affiliated publishers and journals. Lack of standardization places a burden on authors and could limit the effectiveness of the regulations. As GAI continues to grow in popularity, standardized guidelines to protect the integrity of scientific output are needed. Full data are available from the corresponding author at Giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu.

中文翻译：

---

出版商和期刊向作者提供的关于在学术和科学出版中使用生成人工智能的说明：文献计量分析

目标 确定学术出版商和科学期刊对作者使用生成人工智能 (GAI) 的指导范围和内容。设计横断面、文献计量研究。设置学术出版商和科学期刊的网站，筛选日期为 2023 年 5 月 19 日至 20 日，搜索更新日期为 2023 年 10 月 8 日至 9 日。 参与者 最大的 100 家学术出版商和排名前 100 的科学期刊，无论学科、语言或国家/地区起源。出版商通过其组合中的期刊总数来识别，期刊通过 Scimago 期刊排名来识别，使用 Hirsch 指数（H 指数）作为期刊生产力和影响力的指标。主要成果衡量指标 主要成果是排名前 100 名的学术出版商和科学期刊网站上列出的 GAI 指南的内容，以及出版商与其附属期刊之间指南的一致性。结果 在前 100 家最大的出版商中，24% 提供了 GAI 使用指南，其中 15 家 (63%) 位于前 25 名出版商之列。在排名前 100 名的高期刊中，87% 的期刊对 GAI 提供了指导。在有指南的出版商和期刊中，分别有 96% 和 98% 禁止将 GAI 作为作者。只有一本期刊 (1%) 明确禁止在生成手稿时使用 GAI，两家 (8%) 出版商和 19 家 (22%) 期刊表示他们的指南专门适用于写作过程。在披露 GAI 的使用情况时，75% 的出版商和 43% 的期刊包含了具体的披露标准。披露 GAI 使用的位置各不相同，包括在方法或致谢中、在求职信中或在新部分中。在如何访问期刊和出版商之间共享的 GAI 指南方面也存在差异。12 种期刊的 GAI 指南与出版商制定的指南直接冲突。顶级医学期刊制定的指南与学术期刊的指南大致相似。结论 一些顶级出版商和期刊缺乏关于作者使用 GAI 的指南。在提供指南的机构中，GAI 的允许用途及其披露方式存在很大差异，在某些情况下，附属出版商和期刊之间仍然存在这种异质性。缺乏标准化给作者带来了负担，并可能限制法规的有效性。随着 GAI 的不断普及，需要标准化指南来保护科学成果的完整性。完整数据可从通讯作者处获取：Giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu。