Generative‐AI policies vary widely across top ornithology journals

The rapid emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has created new challenges for scientific publishing, yet the extent to which ornithological journals have established formal guidance remains unclear. I evaluated GenAI policies for the top 20 ornithological journals to determine whether journals permit GenAI use for writing, editing and data visualization, and whether policies are publicly accessible. Twelve of the 20 journals (60%) had identifiable GenAI policies, whereas eight journals lacked discoverable guidance. Among journals with policies, seven permitted GenAI use for writing, editing and data visualization, four allowed text‐related use but restricted data visualization, and one allowed editing assistance only. All journals with GenAI policies required disclosure of GenAI use and prohibited listing AI tools as authors. Overall, ornithological journals show substantial heterogeneity in both adoption and restrictiveness of GenAI policies, and lag behind other scientific disciplines in policy development. The absence of clear guidance for a substantial proportion of journals might create uncertainty for authors and increase the risk of inadvertent non‐compliance. Broader adoption of explicit, transparent GenAI policies would improve clarity, consistency and accountability while allowing responsible use of emerging technologies in ornithological publication.