0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessABSTRACT Background Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are designed to mimic human conversations through text or speech, offering both opportunities and challenges in scholarly publishing. While journal policies of AICs are becoming more defined, there is still a limited understanding of how Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) of biomedical journals’ view these tools. This survey examined EiCs’ attitudes and perceptions, highlighting positive aspects, such as language and grammar support, and concerns regarding setup time, training requirements, and ethical considerations towards the use of AICs in the scholarly publishing process. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted, targeting EiCs of biomedical journals across multiple publishers. Of 3725 journals screened, 3381 eligible emails were identified through web scraping and manual verification. Survey invitations were sent to all identified EiCs. The survey remained open for 5 weeks, with three follow-up email reminders. Results The survey had a response rate of 16.5% (510 total responses) and a completion rate of 87.0%. Most respondents were familiar with AI chatbots (66.7%), however, most had not utilized chatbots in their editorial work (83.7%) and many expressed interest in further training (64.4%). EiCs acknowledged benefits such as language and grammar support (70.8%) but expressed mixed attitudes on AIC roles in accelerating peer review. Perceptions included the initial time and resources required for setup (83.7%), training needs (83.9%), and ethical considerations (80.6%). Conclusions This study found that EiCs have mixed attitudes toward AICs, with some EICs acknowledging their potential to enhance editorial efficiency, particularly in tasks like language editing, while others expressed concerns about the ethical implications, the time and resources required for implementation, and the need for additional training.
Jeremy Y. Ng, M. Krishnamurthy, Gursimran Deol, Wid Al-Zahraa Al-Khafaji, V. Balaji, Makonnen Abebe, Jyot Adhvaryu, Tejas Karrthik, Pranavee Mohanakanthan, Adharva Vellaparambil, L.M. Bouter, R. Brian Haynes, Alfonso Iorio, Cynthia Lokker, Hervé Maisonneuve, Ana Marušić, David Moher (2025). 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. , DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.26.25328101.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Preprint
Year
2025
Authors
17
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.26.25328101
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access