Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Scientific Publishing
Clicks: 3
ID: 317132
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #286 of 316 articles by views in european heart journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 316 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is now embedded across the scientific research and publishing ecosystem, influencing discovery, analysis, knowledge translation, authorship, peer review, and editorial workflows. In cardiovascular and biomedical sciences, these developments offer substantial opportunities to accelerate knowledge generation, integrate complex datasets, and improve efficiency and consistency. At the same time, they introduce new risks related to bias, transparency, data integrity, and authorship responsibility, potentially endangering trust in the scientific record. This commentary examines the evolving role of AI in biomedical publishing, with particular attention to generative models and machine learning tools. We review both benefits and limitations, highlight risks such as fabricated content, biased outputs, and erosion of accountability, and discuss why traditional detection approaches are insufficient. Instead, we argue for a shift toward transparency, provenance, and enforceable human responsibility as the core principles guiding AI use, ensuring that AI strengthens rather than undermines scientific rigour and public trust. We outline practical expectations for authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers, with emphasis on reporting standards, reproducibility under rapidly evolving model versions, and the conflict-of-interest implications of AI tooling for the editorial process itself.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7164483647
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Tomasz J. Guzik, Victor Aboyans, Stefan Agewall, Steven Bailey, Adrián Baranchuk, Magnus Bäck, Michael Böhm, Robert O. Bonow, George W. Booz, Giuseppe Boriani, Biykem Bozkurt, Nico Bruining, Davide Capodanno, Çetin Erol, Péter Ferdinandy, Alessia Gimelli, Gerd Heusch, Thomas Kahan, Chim C. Lang, Gerald Maurer, Robert J. Mentz, Marco Metra, Philip Moons, Daniel Piskorz, Massimo Piepoli, P P Piotr Ponikowski, Alexandra Popma, Rocca Bj, Juan Sanchís Forés, P Sommer, Rhian M Touyz, Zoltan Ungvari, Pascal Vranckx, Joseph A. Hill, T F Luescher, Filippo Crea |
| Journal | european heart journal |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/eurheartj/ehag494
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.