Artificial Intelligence

Publishers:

• Elsevier's Guidance for Responsible Use of AI in Research
• Elsevier's Guide to Publishing Ethics
• MIT Press Submission Guidance
• Nature's Stance on Generative AI and AI-generated images
• NIH's Policy on Using Generative AI for Grants
• PLOS ONE 
• SAGE Journal's Policy on Generative AI
• Science's Editorial Policy for Science Journals
• Springer Editorial Policy on Artificial Intelligence
• Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies on Authorship
• Wiley's Stance on Artificial Intelligence Generated Content

most of the above links provided by UND Chester Fritz Library's Guide "AI: Artificial Intelligence Resources: Publisher and Journal Policies"

When your publisher does not have policies on AI use, follow the EASE recommendations on how AI use should be declared.

Associations:

• ICMJE
• WAME

In July of 2023, the NIH clearly stated “Using AI in Peer Review is a Breach of Confidentiality”

EASE's recommendations on AI in peer review:

"We strongly recommend specifying whether reviewers are allowed to use AI tools during peer review, and to consider distinguishing between the use of AI for language or style editing of the reviewer’s written comments versus AI creation of the review comments. Furthermore, journals should specify if and how they will use any tools that check if part(s) of the review were written by an AI, what are potential consequences of those findings, as well as what authors should do in cases when they suspect use of AI for those purposes. Any AI peer review policy should be highlighted in the review invitation emails and in the online submission platform."
 

Policies on AI in peer review:

• COPE’s discussion document on Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making)

Several journals, publishers, and funding agencies have prohibited the use of AI tools by peer reviewers:

• Royal Society
• National Institutes of Health
• Elsevier