Background: Large language models (LLMs), the most recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), have profoundly affected academic publishing and raised important ethical and practical concerns. This study examined the prevalence and content of AI guidelines in Korean medical journals to assess the current landscape and inform future policy implementation. Methods: The top 100 Korean medical journals determined by Hirsh index were surveyed. Author guidelines were collected and screened by a human researcher and AI chatbot to identify AI-related content. The key components of LLM policies were extracted and compared across journals. The journal characteristics associated with the adoption of AI guidelines were also analyzed. Results: Only 18% of the surveyed journals had LLM guidelines, which is much lower than previously reported in international journals. However, the adoption rates increased over time, reaching 57.1% in the first quarter of 2024. High-impact journals were more likely to have AI guidelines. All journals with LLM guidelines required authors to declare LLM tool use and 94.4% prohibited AI authorship. The key policy components included emphasizing human responsibility (72.2%), discouraging AI-generated content (44.4%), and exempting basic AI tools (38.9%). Conclusion While the adoption of LLM guidelines among Korean medical journals is lower than the global trend, there has been a clear increase in implementation over time. The key components of these guidelines align with international standards, but greater standardization and collaboration are needed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in medical research and writing.

Background: Large language models (LLMs), the most recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), have profoundly affected academic publishing and raised important ethical and practical concerns. This study examined the prevalence and content of AI guidelines in Korean medical journals to assess the current landscape and inform future policy implementation. Methods: The top 100 Korean medical journals determined by Hirsh index were surveyed. Author guidelines were collected and screened by a human researcher and AI chatbot to identify AI-related content. The key components of LLM policies were extracted and compared across journals. The journal characteristics associated with the adoption of AI guidelines were also analyzed. Results: Only 18% of the surveyed journals had LLM guidelines, which is much lower than previously reported in international journals. However, the adoption rates increased over time, reaching 57.1% in the first quarter of 2024. High-impact journals were more likely to have AI guidelines. All journals with LLM guidelines required authors to declare LLM tool use and 94.4% prohibited AI authorship. The key policy components included emphasizing human responsibility (72.2%), discouraging AI-generated content (44.4%), and exempting basic AI tools (38.9%). Conclusion While the adoption of LLM guidelines among Korean medical journals is lower than the global trend, there has been a clear increase in implementation over time. The key components of these guidelines align with international standards, but greater standardization and collaboration are needed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in medical research and writing.

Background: Large language models (LLMs), the most recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), have profoundly affected academic publishing and raised important ethical and practical concerns. This study examined the prevalence and content of AI guidelines in Korean medical journals to assess the current landscape and inform future policy implementation. Methods: The top 100 Korean medical journals determined by Hirsh index were surveyed. Author guidelines were collected and screened by a human researcher and AI chatbot to identify AI-related content. The key components of LLM policies were extracted and compared across journals. The journal characteristics associated with the adoption of AI guidelines were also analyzed. Results: Only 18% of the surveyed journals had LLM guidelines, which is much lower than previously reported in international journals. However, the adoption rates increased over time, reaching 57.1% in the first quarter of 2024. High-impact journals were more likely to have AI guidelines. All journals with LLM guidelines required authors to declare LLM tool use and 94.4% prohibited AI authorship. The key policy components included emphasizing human responsibility (72.2%), discouraging AI-generated content (44.4%), and exempting basic AI tools (38.9%). Conclusion While the adoption of LLM guidelines among Korean medical journals is lower than the global trend, there has been a clear increase in implementation over time. The key components of these guidelines align with international standards, but greater standardization and collaboration are needed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in medical research and writing.

Background: Large language models (LLMs), the most recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), have profoundly affected academic publishing and raised important ethical and practical concerns. This study examined the prevalence and content of AI guidelines in Korean medical journals to assess the current landscape and inform future policy implementation. Methods: The top 100 Korean medical journals determined by Hirsh index were surveyed. Author guidelines were collected and screened by a human researcher and AI chatbot to identify AI-related content. The key components of LLM policies were extracted and compared across journals. The journal characteristics associated with the adoption of AI guidelines were also analyzed. Results: Only 18% of the surveyed journals had LLM guidelines, which is much lower than previously reported in international journals. However, the adoption rates increased over time, reaching 57.1% in the first quarter of 2024. High-impact journals were more likely to have AI guidelines. All journals with LLM guidelines required authors to declare LLM tool use and 94.4% prohibited AI authorship. The key policy components included emphasizing human responsibility (72.2%), discouraging AI-generated content (44.4%), and exempting basic AI tools (38.9%). Conclusion While the adoption of LLM guidelines among Korean medical journals is lower than the global trend, there has been a clear increase in implementation over time. The key components of these guidelines align with international standards, but greater standardization and collaboration are needed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in medical research and writing.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Background: Medical students are known to be subjected to immense stress under competitive curricula and have a high risk of depression, burnout, anxiety and sleep disorders. There is a global trend of switching from norm-referenced assessment (NRA) to criterion-referenced assessment (CRA), and these changes may have influenced the quality of life (QOL), sleep phase, sleep quality, stress, burnout, and depression of the medical students. We hypothesized that there is a significant difference of QOL between CRA and NRA and that sleep, stress, burnout, and depression are the main contributors. Methods: By administering an online survey regarding QOL and its contributors to Korean medical students, 365 responses from 10 medical schools were recorded. To clarify the complex relationship between the multiple factors in play, we applied nonlinear machine learning algorithms and utilized causal structure learning techniques on the survey data. Results: Students with CRA had lower scores in stress (68.16 ± 11.29, 76.03 ± 12.38, P< 0.001), burnout (48.09 ± 11.23, 55.93 ± 13.07, P < 0.001), depression (12.77 ± 9.82, 16.44 ± 11.27, P = 0.003) and higher scores in QOL (95.79 ± 16.20, 89.65 ± 16.28, P < 0.001) compared with students with NRA. Multiple linear regression, permutation importance of the random forest model and the causal structure model showed that depression, stress and burnout are the most influential factors of QOL of medical students. Conclusion Medical students from schools that use CRA showed higher QOL scores, as well as lower burnout, stress and depression when compared with students from schools that use NRA. These results may be used as a basis for granting justification for the transition to CRA.