Artificial intelligence policies in academic primary health care: a review of journals and their publishers
Richard Armitage, Amani Al-OraibiAbstract
Background:
The rapid adoption of AI tools in academic research has created uncertainty about appropriate use in manuscript preparation, particularly in primary health care where clear guidance is essential for maintaining research integrity across diverse settings.
Objectives:
This review aimed to assess the availability and content of AI policies across primary health care journals and their publishers.
Methods:
We identified primary health care journals through searches of SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Google Scholar, and a Google search. After screening for English language, functioning webpages, recent publications, and exclusion of predatory journals, 41 journals were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed journal homepages, author guidelines, submission policies, and editorial policies for AI-related statements at both journal and publisher levels between 18 and 21 July 2025.
Results:
Of 41 journals assessed, 33 (80.5%) had publicly available AI policies – 21 (51.2%) at journal level and 12 (29.3%) at publisher level. Eight journals (19.5%) had no identifiable public AI policy. All identified policies were permissive toward AI use but varied in requirements across five key areas: disclosure of AI use, acceptable AI tasks, AI authorship considerations, author responsibility, and peer review guidelines.
Conclusion:
While most primary health care journals have established AI policies, significant gaps remain in accessibility and standardization. The fragmented governance landscape, characterized by inconsistent policy locations and requirements, creates confusion for authors and might compromise research integrity. Standardized, easily accessible AI policies are needed to enable researchers to harness AI’s potential while maintaining transparency and scientific rigour essential to primary health care research.