Turkish Medical Student Journal recognizes the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, including large language models (LLMs) and other AI-driven platforms, in manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial processes. While these tools may offer valuable assistance, transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations must remain central.
For Authors
Turkish Medical Student Journal adopts the WAME recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots related to scientific publications:
Chatbots cannot be authors
Authors should be transparent when chatbots are used and provide information about how they were used.
Authors submitting a paper in which a chatbot/AI was used to draft new text should note such use in the acknowledgment; all prompts used to generate new text, or to convert text or text prompts into tables or illustrations, should be specified.
When an AI tool such as a chatbot is used to carry out or generate analytical work, help report results (e.g., generating tables or figures), or write computer codes, this should be stated in the body of the paper, in both the Abstract and the Methods section. In the interests of enabling scientific scrutiny, including replication and identifying falsification, the full prompt used to generate the research results, the time and date of the query, and the AI tool used and its version, should be provided.
Authors are responsible for the work performed by a chatbot in their paper (including the accuracy of what is presented, and the absence of plagiarism) and for appropriate attribution of all sources (including for material produced by the chatbot)
Editors and peer reviewers should specify, to authors and each other, any use of chatbots in the evaluation of the manuscript and generation of reviews and correspondence. If they use chatbots in their communications with authors and each other, they should explain how they were used.
Editors need appropriate tools to help them detect content generated or altered by AI. Such tools should be made available to editors regardless of their ability to pay for them, for the good of science and the public, and to help ensure the integrity of healthcare information and reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes.
Ethical Considerations
Authors are expected and encouraged to consider and adhere to the relevant ethical guidelines regarding the author responsibilities, reproduced and re-created material, and image integrity.
For Reviewers
Transparency and Disclosure:
Reviewers must disclose if AI tools significantly assisted in their peer-review activities.
Reviewers must clearly describe the scope of AI involvement when submitting review reports.
Validation and Accountability:
Reviewers remain responsible for all review content, including content assisted or generated by AI.
AI-generated suggestions or analyses must be carefully reviewed and validated by reviewers for accuracy and relevance.
Confidentiality:
Reviewers must ensure AI tools used for peer review adhere strictly to confidentiality and do not risk exposure of sensitive manuscript content.
For Editors
Transparency and Disclosure:
Editors must disclose any significant use of AI tools during manuscript evaluation and decision-making processes.
Editors should specify the extent and context in which AI tools contributed to editorial decisions.
Accountability and Validation:
Editors retain full responsibility for final publication decisions, regardless of AI assistance.
Editorial decisions based on AI-generated information require thorough human validation and interpretation.
Ethical and Confidential Considerations:
Editors must ensure ethical use of AI in compliance with privacy, confidentiality, and institutional guidelines.
Editorial workflows incorporating AI tools must protect authors' and reviewers' confidentiality and data security.
