Purpose Generative AI is a powerful resource for health professions education (HPE) researchers publishing their work. However, questions remain about its use and guidance about disclosure is inconsistent. This situation is both confusing and potentially perilous for researchers, who risk their reputations if they disclose AI use inappropriately. This study explores HPE and general medical journal editors’ experiences and expectations of AI-use disclosure, in order to assist journals to clarify expectations and authors to satisfy them.

Methods In this descriptive qualitative study, journal editors were interviewed between January 6, 2025, and May 7, 2025 using an online Zoom platform. Eligible participants were identified through journal webpages and snowball sampling. A purposive sampling strategy prioritized HPE research journals and included a limited sample of general medical research journals to explore transferability. Data collection and thematic analysis proceeded iteratively.

Results Eighteen participants, including 9 chief editors and 9 associate/deputy editors were interviewed. Fourteen participants worked in HPE journals, four in general medical journals. The analysis revealed 4 key themes: 1) the basics of disclosure, made up of content and location expectations shared by participants; 2) the sufficiency threshold, regarding how much detail to include; 3) the necessity threshold, regarding which circumstances require disclosure; and 4) the factors blurring these two thresholds, which included the speed of change, the co-construction of disclosure standards, and the uneasy fit of scientific principles such as reproducibility and transparency with the AI-use context.

Conclusions While editors shared basic disclosure expectations, they also provided insight into blurred thresholds of sufficiency and necessity that complicate disclosure. By attending to these thresholds and the factors blurring them, and by using these insights to apply recent AI-use and disclosure frameworks, journals can develop enhance their guidelines, which will assist authors in HPE in navigating the shifting norms of AI-use disclosure.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This project received funding support from Continuing Professional Development, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University in the form of a 2024 Digital Research & Innovation Grant

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study received institutional ethics approval from Western University Non-Medical Research Ethics Board (ID#125269).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data produced in the present study is not available in order to protect participant confidentiality.