Artificial intelligence in medical writing: clarifying perspectives and journal policies

ChatGPT's "current" limitations include inaccuracies or contextual misinterpretations, which are likely to improve with technical advancement.Contrarily, AI's impact on human "future" writing ability and cognition could become a significant problem in the coming years. 4Thus, I suggest the authors do the following: 1) clearly indicate which aspects they address, and 2) if their study was targeted, briefly mention broader implications.Stating such a "large frame" of a study may be valuable to readers.To the journals Please highlight whether you have journal -specific regulations on AI use-preferably on the first page of the author guidelines.While many journals generally align with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Recommendations (https://www.icmje.org/icmje -recommendations.pdf)-including the declaration of AI use and accountabilitythere are sometimes variations, as described by Koulaouzidis et al. 1 This is an exaggeration, but some journal editors may provide a policy such as, "We never permit AI use," while others might take the opposite stance: "We have no regulation on AI use, only that you declare all."As stated by Koulaouzidis et al, 1 AI regulation in medical writing has not yet been established, and some journal -level freedom in this domain is permissible.However, AI guidelines are often lengthy and written flatly, making it difficult for authors to identify journal -specific rules.Having written over 600 PubMed -indexed papers during my 46 years of clinical practice, I have experienced how nonadherence to journal -specific guidelines-such as using Arial 10 pt font instead of my usual Times New Roman 12 pt font-often caused paper returns.I previously proposed that journal -specific regulations should be highlighted on the first page of the guidelines. 5This applies to AI guidelines as well.If a journal has a specific AI guideline, it should be placed prominently