AI and authorship
The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are not to be listed as an author on a paper.
All authors listed must have significantly contributed to the work's conception or design, or to data collection, analysis, or interpretation; participated in drafting or critically revising it; approved the final version; and agreed to take responsibility for the work's integrity. (ICMJE 2017).
The Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) position statement (2023) states:
‘AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements.’
It is the responsibility of the submitting author to verify and validate the content of their paper in its entirety and ensure that it is accurate, relevant, and correctly cited.
AI and preparing the paper
Veterinary Evidence recognises the use of LLMs and AI as a tool to assist authors, especially for equity and inclusion reasons where tools might be used as an assistive or adaptive technology.
LLMs and AI tools should only be used to improve language and readability of text, and not to generate any concepts, insights, data analyses or to create any conclusions.
Veterinary Evidence will not accept any images, figures or tables that have been produced using LLM or AI-assisted tools.
Authors must be transparent and must disclose the use of LLMs and AI tools in the Acknowledgement section of the paper, and they must describe which tool was used and how it was used.
Confidentiality and AI use in Peer Review
Peer review is a confidential process. Inputting papers or identifiable information into LLMs or AI tools may compromise that confidentiality as these tools do not guarantee data security.
Veterinary Evidence selects reviewers for their subject expertise, and they are expected to apply their own professional judgement when evaluating papers. AI or LLM tools must not be used as a substitute for critical assessment or decision-making during the review process.
This policy will be updated as necessary.
Please visit Veterinary Evidence’s Editorial Policies for more information on publication ethics.