Artificial intelligence and journals: A perspective

Over the past 2 years, the question for medical journals has shifted from ‘Will Artificial Intelligence (AI) affect publishing?’ to ‘How do we keep publishing trustworthy when AI is everywhere?’ AI has moved quickly from being a mere curiosity to a routine presence in medical publishing. What concerns editors today is no longer whether AI will be used, but how its use can be aligned with the core values of scientific communication: accuracy, accountability, transparency and trust. AI now touches almost every step: writing, editing, peer review, image creation and even editorial workflows.

For authors, the most visible change is in scientific writing. Many researchers now use generative AI for language polishing, restructuring paragraphs, shortening abstracts or preparing cover letters. This can help non-native english speakers and busy practitioners or academics communicate better. However, it also creates a risk: ease of writing does not guarantee quality of thinking. A text can appear fluent but it may be conceptually weak, factually inaccurate or poorly aligned with the underlying data. AI-generated text can sound confident while misrepresenting evidence or fabricating citations. As recent editorials have emphasised, responsibility for content remains entirely with the human author, regardless of the tools used.^[1]

Therefore, journals have begun to formalise policies on AI use. The central principle is that AI tools cannot be listed as authors, take responsibility for data integrity or replace human judgment. Authors should clearly state whether AI tools were used, for what purpose, and at which stage of manuscript preparation. A recent analysis in The BMJ showed that while many journals now address AI in their instructions to authors, policies vary widely in clarity and strictness.^[2]

Peer review presents a more sensitive challenge. Reviewers face increasing workloads, and the temptation to use AI tools to summarise manuscripts or draft comments is understandable. However, peer review depends on confidentiality. Uploading unpublished manuscripts to external AI platforms may violate journal policy and compromise author trust. Most journals either prohibit or strongly restrict the use of AI in peer review.^[3] Editorials in JAMA and The Lancet have reinforced this position, warning that unregulated AI use risks breaches of confidentiality, half-baked reviews and introducing errors that may go unnoticed.^[4]

At the editorial level, AI has more legitimate and potentially valuable applications. Automated checks for formatting errors, missing reporting items, reference accuracy, plagiarism and image manipulation can reduce administrative burden and enable early decision-making. Some journals are experimenting with AI-assisted stems to support editors, not replace them. NEJM AI has described a ‘human plus AI’ model that aims to accelerate review while keeping editorial authority firmly with humans.^[5] These developments are promising, but require careful monitoring. Overreliance on automated systems may create false reassurance, disadvantage certain research areas or writing styles.

AI also introduces new forms of misconduct, fabricated references, AI-generated manuscripts with minimal scientific value and paraphrased plagiarism designed to evade detection, to say the least. Technical solutions alone will not solve this problem. Journals must continue to prioritise substance over polish.

The Indian Journal of Psychiatry addressed emerging challenges in scientific publishing, including the role of generative AI, in a 2024 editorial that focused on safeguarding academic integrity while adapting to new technologies.^[6]

Looking ahead, the path is neither to ban AI nor to embrace it uncritically. Used carefully, AI can improve clarity, efficiency and editorial workflow. Used without transparency or oversight, it can erode trust and accountability. Editors must set clear expectations, reviewers must respect confidentiality and authors must remember that tools do not replace responsibility. Good scientific writing is not defined by fluency alone, but by fidelity to data, methods and ethical standards. At this stage, J. K. Rowling’s words in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets come to mind: ‘Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain.’

We at JISH also felt the need to engage with the rising AI more holistically. Over the past few months, the JISH Editorial Advisory Board brainstormed to create an AI use policy, which is now uploaded on our website. Needless to say, the policy will be periodically updated as AI technologies and ethical standards evolve. Authors and reviewers must consult the most current version before engaging with the journal.

In the current issue of JISH, we have a series of original research articles, ranging from pure research - Spectral analysis of Ferr Phos 6× using a UV spectrometer,^[7] Clinical research – Homoeopathic management of melisma,^[8] single arm clinical trial of Effectiveness of Fagopyrum esculentum in Atopic Dermatitis,^[9] and Educational Research - Evaluating the efficacy of a flipped classroom teaching learning method compared to traditional classroom method in teaching UG students.^[10] We also have an interesting meta-analysis of the role of homoeopathy in insomnia.^[11] In addition, we have interesting evidence-based case reports demonstrating the utility of homoeopathy for treating hypothyroidism and smokeless tobacco addiction.

As 2025 draws to an end, we continue to move ahead in our quest to publish and promote scientific, evidence-based homoeopathy. We have come this far only with the efforts, support and help of our esteemed Editorial Advisory Board, our reviewers and our trusted publishers, Scientific Scholar LLP. They remain our partners as we move ahead.

Most importantly, I would like to thank our readers, without whom we would not have sustained. I hope that the New Year brings warmth and happiness to your lives and that of your loved ones. On behalf of the entire editorial board of JISH, I wish you all a very Happy New Year!

We are seeing that vast changes are taking place all over the world. Change is not easy, but it becomes more acceptable if we are open to its possibilities. In our world, AI is bringing in a revolution in which we may use AI as a faithful assistant: quiet, diligent, tireless in organising, indexing and reminding. However, we must remain in charge- ever conscious of what we gain, what we risk and what we must value. I am reminded of a line from a poem by William Butler Yeats, which seems apt at this stage:

‘In dreams begin responsibilities.’^[12]

May we walk into this digital dawn not as dreamers seeking escape, but as healers embracing responsibility.