English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We aim to determine the extent and content of guidance for authors regardingthe use of generative-AI (GAI), Generative Pretrained models (GPTs) and LargeLanguage Models (LLMs) powered tools among the top 100 academic publishers andjournals in science. The websites of these publishers and journals werescreened from between 19th and 20th May 2023. Among the largest 100 publishers,17% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 12 (70.6%) were among the top25 publishers. Among the top 100 journals, 70% have provided guidance on GAI.Of those with guidance, 94.1% of publishers and 95.7% of journals prohibitedthe inclusion of GAI as an author. Four journals (5.7%) explicitly prohibit theuse of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, while 3 (17.6%) publishers and 15(21.4%) journals indicated their guidance exclusively applies to the writingprocess. When disclosing the use of GAI, 42.8% of publishers and 44.3% ofjournals included specific disclosure criteria. There was variability inguidance of where to disclose the use of GAI, including in the methods,acknowledgments, cover letter, or a new section. There was also variability inhow to access GAI guidance and the linking of journal and publisherinstructions to authors. There is a lack of guidance by some top publishers andjournals on the use of GAI by authors. Among those publishers and journals thatprovide guidance, there is substantial heterogeneity in the allowable uses ofGAI and in how it should be disclosed, with this heterogeneity persisting amongaffiliated publishers and journals in some instances. The lack ofstandardization burdens authors and threatens to limit the effectiveness ofthese regulations. There is a need for standardized guidelines in order toprotect the integrity of scientific output as GAI continues to grow inpopularity.

Bibliometric Analysis of Publisher and Journal Instructions to Authors on Generative-AI in Academic and Scientific Publishing