The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study
Insights into Imaging, ISSN: 1869-4101, Vol: 15, Issue: 1, Page: 186
2024
- 4Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- Captures31
- Readers31
- 31
Article Description
Objective: To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence. Methods: In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated. Results: The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency. Critical relevance statement: It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals. Key Points: The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85200319824&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01769-7; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39090273; https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13244-024-01769-7; https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01769-7
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know