Quantifying Artificial Intelligence Contribution in Academic Writing: Development of the Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions Instrument.

IF 2
Marianne B Vyas, Lori M Rhudy, Suzanne Weckman, Joshua Ennis, Elizabeth A Hundt, Amanda Werner, Fiona Smith, Eugena Bergvall, Florence Chukwuneke, Lindsay M Riskey, DaiWai M Olson
{"title":"Quantifying Artificial Intelligence Contribution in Academic Writing: Development of the Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions Instrument.","authors":"Marianne B Vyas, Lori M Rhudy, Suzanne Weckman, Joshua Ennis, Elizabeth A Hundt, Amanda Werner, Fiona Smith, Eugena Bergvall, Florence Chukwuneke, Lindsay M Riskey, DaiWai M Olson","doi":"10.1097/JNN.0000000000000903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been an increase in the availability and use of artificial intelligence (AI) across many professional domains, and there are traces of AI in nearly every manuscript published using modern technology. It is becoming increasingly difficult for peer reviewers, editorial teams, and journal readers to identify the degree to which authors have used AI in the development of their manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our research group developed an AI scoring rubric to provide authors with an opportunity to self-disclose their use of AI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions (TRACES) instrument provides a score from 0 to 40 across 3 domains: mechanics, writing, and illustrations. Higher scores indicate increased use of AI by the authors when writing or preparing a manuscript for submission.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Authors in any field should self-report a TRACES score when submitting their manuscript. Journals may benefit from requiring authors to include a TRACES score when submitting a manuscript for peer review. While higher TRACES scores indicate greater use of AI, there is no specific cutoff provided to determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.</p>","PeriodicalId":94240,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","volume":" ","pages":"192-195"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been an increase in the availability and use of artificial intelligence (AI) across many professional domains, and there are traces of AI in nearly every manuscript published using modern technology. It is becoming increasingly difficult for peer reviewers, editorial teams, and journal readers to identify the degree to which authors have used AI in the development of their manuscripts.

Methods: Our research group developed an AI scoring rubric to provide authors with an opportunity to self-disclose their use of AI.

Results: The Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions (TRACES) instrument provides a score from 0 to 40 across 3 domains: mechanics, writing, and illustrations. Higher scores indicate increased use of AI by the authors when writing or preparing a manuscript for submission.

Conclusion: Authors in any field should self-report a TRACES score when submitting their manuscript. Journals may benefit from requiring authors to include a TRACES score when submitting a manuscript for peer review. While higher TRACES scores indicate greater use of AI, there is no specific cutoff provided to determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

量化学术写作中的人工智能贡献:评估提交工具中人工智能贡献的透明度和报告的发展。
背景:人工智能(AI)在许多专业领域的可用性和使用都有所增加,几乎在使用现代技术发表的每一份手稿中都有人工智能的痕迹。同行审稿人、编辑团队和期刊读者越来越难以确定作者在手稿开发中使用人工智能的程度。方法:我们的研究小组开发了一个人工智能评分标准,为作者提供了一个自我披露其使用人工智能的机会。结果:评估提交的人工智能贡献的透明度和报告(TRACES)工具在3个领域提供了从0到40的分数:机制,写作和插图。分数越高,表明作者在撰写或准备投稿时使用了更多的人工智能。结论:任何领域的作者在提交稿件时都应该自我报告TRACES分数。期刊可能会受益于要求作者在提交稿件供同行评审时包括TRACES分数。虽然更高的TRACES分数表明更多地使用了人工智能,但没有提供具体的截止值来确定稿件的接受或拒绝。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书