Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming scholarly publishing, raising new ethical challenges for journals that address health and digital media. This editorial argues that Health & New Media Research requires a clear and explicit AI editorial policy to protect research integrity and public trust. Drawing on guidance from COPE, ICMJE, WAME, and major publishers, it summarizes the emerging consensus that AI tools cannot be authors, that their use must be transparently disclosed, and that humans remain fully accountable for all content. The editorial discusses both the potential benefits of generative AI, such as reducing language barriers and supporting research work-flows, and the associated risks, including hallucination, overgeneralization, fabricated citations, and new forms of misconduct. Special attention is given to the heightened risks of AI use in health-related communication and data-sensitive research. Core principles for authors are proposed, alongside practical guidance on responsible AI use. The editorial also outlines corresponding policy directions for editors and peer reviewers, emphasizing confidentiality and non-delegable human judgment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghee Young Noh (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: