  We aim to determine the extent and content of guidance for authors regarding
the use of generative-AI (GAI), Generative Pretrained models (GPTs) and Large
Language Models (LLMs) powered tools among the top 100 academic publishers and
journals in science. The websites of these publishers and journals were
screened from between 19th and 20th May 2023. Among the largest 100 publishers,
17% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 12 (70.6%) were among the top
25 publishers. Among the top 100 journals, 70% have provided guidance on GAI.
Of those with guidance, 94.1% of publishers and 95.7% of journals prohibited
the inclusion of GAI as an author. Four journals (5.7%) explicitly prohibit the
use of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, while 3 (17.6%) publishers and 15
(21.4%) journals indicated their guidance exclusively applies to the writing
process. When disclosing the use of GAI, 42.8% of publishers and 44.3% of
journals included specific disclosure criteria. There was variability in
guidance of where to disclose the use of GAI, including in the methods,
acknowledgments, cover letter, or a new section. There was also variability in
how to access GAI guidance and the linking of journal and publisher
instructions to authors. There is a lack of guidance by some top publishers and
journals on the use of GAI by authors. Among those publishers and journals that
provide guidance, there is substantial heterogeneity in the allowable uses of
GAI and in how it should be disclosed, with this heterogeneity persisting among
affiliated publishers and journals in some instances. The lack of
standardization burdens authors and threatens to limit the effectiveness of
these regulations. There is a need for standardized guidelines in order to
protect the integrity of scientific output as GAI continues to grow in
popularity.
