Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini
{"title":"Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?","authors":"David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Currently there is a broad consensus among scholars that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used in research and publication, and that their use should be disclosed. Publishers and influential organizations, like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, have developed different and sometimes contradictory disclosure policies. We review some of these policies, examine the ethical reasons for disclosing AI use in research, and develop a framework for disclosure. We distinguish between mandatory, optional, and unnecessary disclosure of AI use, arguing that disclosure should be mandatory only when AI use is intentional and substantial. AI use is intentional when it is directly employed with a specific goal or purpose in mind. AI use is substantial when it 1) produces evidence, analysis, or discussion that supports or elaborates on the conclusions/findings of a study; or 2) directly affects the content of the research/publication. To support the application of our framework, we state three criteria for identifying substantial AI uses in research: a) using AI to make decisions that directly affect research results; b) using AI to generate content, data or images; and c) using AI to analyze content, data or images. Disclosure should be mandatory when AI use meets one of these criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Currently there is a broad consensus among scholars that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used in research and publication, and that their use should be disclosed. Publishers and influential organizations, like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, have developed different and sometimes contradictory disclosure policies. We review some of these policies, examine the ethical reasons for disclosing AI use in research, and develop a framework for disclosure. We distinguish between mandatory, optional, and unnecessary disclosure of AI use, arguing that disclosure should be mandatory only when AI use is intentional and substantial. AI use is intentional when it is directly employed with a specific goal or purpose in mind. AI use is substantial when it 1) produces evidence, analysis, or discussion that supports or elaborates on the conclusions/findings of a study; or 2) directly affects the content of the research/publication. To support the application of our framework, we state three criteria for identifying substantial AI uses in research: a) using AI to make decisions that directly affect research results; b) using AI to generate content, data or images; and c) using AI to analyze content, data or images. Disclosure should be mandatory when AI use meets one of these criteria.

披露人工智能在科学研究和出版中的使用:何时披露应该是强制性的、可选的或不必要的?
目前,学者们普遍认为人工智能(AI)工具可以用于研究和出版,并且应该公开它们的使用情况。出版商和有影响力的组织,如国际医学期刊编辑委员会,制定了不同的,有时甚至是相互矛盾的披露政策。我们回顾了其中的一些政策,研究了在研究中披露人工智能使用的伦理原因,并制定了一个披露框架。我们区分了强制性、可选性和不必要的人工智能使用披露,认为只有在人工智能使用是故意和实质性的情况下,披露才应该是强制性的。人工智能的使用是有意的,当它直接用于特定的目标或目的时。人工智能的使用是实质性的,当它1)产生支持或阐述研究结论/发现的证据、分析或讨论;或者2)直接影响研究/出版物的内容。为了支持我们的框架的应用,我们提出了确定研究中实质性人工智能使用的三个标准:a)使用人工智能做出直接影响研究结果的决策;b)使用AI生成内容、数据或图像;c)使用人工智能分析内容、数据或图像。当人工智能的使用符合这些标准之一时,披露应该是强制性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信