Background Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled programs to mimic human behaviors, including thought and speech. Capabilities of AI (e.g. ChatGPT) include summarizing findings of previous research, generating and analyzing data, and assisting in writing and editing. However, these capabilities also raise concerns surrounding copyright, attribution, plagiarism, authorship, accuracy. This cross-sectional study aims to assess how dermatology journals address the use of AI for authors and reviewers and determine if there is a difference in impact factor (IF) between journals with and without AI statements.

Methods Dermatology journals, ranks, and IFs were identified from The Observatory of International Research in July 2024. Journals’ statements on AI were collected from their guidelines pages. When the journal deferred to the publisher for AI guidance, statements were also collected from the publishers’ guidelines pages. The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed the distribution of the data. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test examined differences in IFs between journals with and without AI statements. Significance was set at p<0.05.

Results A total of 59 journals were included in the study, 29 (49.2%) and 41 (69.5%) of which did not have AI statements for authors and reviewers, respectively. The most common author guidelines included: requiring disclosure of AI use (n=29, 49.2%), prohibiting listing AI as author (n=27, 45.8%), and allowing AI to enhance readability and language (n=12, 20.3%). For reviewers, the most common guidelines included: cautioning against AI use due to confidentiality concerns (n=16, 27.1%), requiring declaration of AI use in peer review reports (n=5, 8.5%), and prohibiting AI use in peer review (n=3, 5.1%). No significant difference in IF was found between journals with and without AI statements for authors (p=0.26); however, journals with higher IF were more likely to have AI statements for reviewers (p=0.03).

Conclusion We found that nearly half of the dermatology journals included in our study lacked AI guidelines for authors, and even more did not have guidelines for reviewers. Journals of all impacts have begun to release AI statements for authors, but higher impact journals are more likely to provide guidance to reviewers. As AI technology continues to evolve, it is crucial for journals to establish comprehensive and clear guidelines to ensure ethical and accurate use of AI in research. In the meantime, dermatology researchers should adhere to these guidelines to ensure transparency in their work, and readers should be aware of these standards when interpreting research findings.