Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows.

IF 9.6 Q1 ETHICS
Jan Christopher Cwik
{"title":"Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows.","authors":"Jan Christopher Cwik","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00245-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Generative AI is increasingly used in scholarly research, writing, and publication workflows. Many journal and publisher policies ask authors to disclose relevant AI use, but disclosure alone rarely clarifies how AI-assisted work was performed, what information was entered, how outputs were evaluated, or how human responsibility was maintained. This creates a gap between AI-use disclosure as a publication requirement and AI-use documentation as an open science practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This article develops a conceptual and practical framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly workflows. The framework was informed by exploratory, non-systematic source and policy mapping, AI-assisted exploratory evidence mapping, manual review of selected recent literature, and development of accompanying Open Science Framework materials. These steps were used to identify recurring documentation expectations and unresolved policy gaps and to translate them into practical documentation domains, with particular attention to task specificity, proportionality, role-specific documentation, privacy-sensitive transparency, and clinically sensitive contexts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The framework distinguishes disclosure from documentation and proposes documentation fields for minimal and extended AI use. Minimal documentation is intended for low-risk uses such as limited language polishing, whereas extended documentation is recommended when AI supports literature synthesis, coding, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, peer-review-related work, clinical material, or research procedures. The framework is accompanied by reusable OSF materials, including documentation templates, prompt-log structures, declaration examples, checklists, clinical redaction guidance, and source-tracking materials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-use disclosure communicates that AI was used; documentation makes the AI-assisted workflow traceable, inspectable, and accountable. A task-specific, proportionate, role-specific, and privacy-sensitive documentation approach can support responsible AI use while protecting confidential, patient-related, peer-review-related, and methodologically sensitive information. The accompanying bilingual materials are openly available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A439J .</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13483690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00245-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Generative AI is increasingly used in scholarly research, writing, and publication workflows. Many journal and publisher policies ask authors to disclose relevant AI use, but disclosure alone rarely clarifies how AI-assisted work was performed, what information was entered, how outputs were evaluated, or how human responsibility was maintained. This creates a gap between AI-use disclosure as a publication requirement and AI-use documentation as an open science practice.

Methods: This article develops a conceptual and practical framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly workflows. The framework was informed by exploratory, non-systematic source and policy mapping, AI-assisted exploratory evidence mapping, manual review of selected recent literature, and development of accompanying Open Science Framework materials. These steps were used to identify recurring documentation expectations and unresolved policy gaps and to translate them into practical documentation domains, with particular attention to task specificity, proportionality, role-specific documentation, privacy-sensitive transparency, and clinically sensitive contexts.

Results: The framework distinguishes disclosure from documentation and proposes documentation fields for minimal and extended AI use. Minimal documentation is intended for low-risk uses such as limited language polishing, whereas extended documentation is recommended when AI supports literature synthesis, coding, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, peer-review-related work, clinical material, or research procedures. The framework is accompanied by reusable OSF materials, including documentation templates, prompt-log structures, declaration examples, checklists, clinical redaction guidance, and source-tracking materials.

Conclusions: AI-use disclosure communicates that AI was used; documentation makes the AI-assisted workflow traceable, inspectable, and accountable. A task-specific, proportionate, role-specific, and privacy-sensitive documentation approach can support responsible AI use while protecting confidential, patient-related, peer-review-related, and methodologically sensitive information. The accompanying bilingual materials are openly available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A439J .

披露不是文档:它是一个开放的科学框架,用于记录学术研究和出版工作流程中生成人工智能的使用。
背景:生成式人工智能越来越多地用于学术研究、写作和出版工作流程。许多期刊和出版商的政策要求作者披露相关的人工智能使用情况,但仅披露很少能澄清人工智能辅助工作是如何进行的,输入了什么信息,如何评估产出,或如何维护人类责任。这在作为出版要求的人工智能使用披露和作为开放科学实践的人工智能使用文档之间造成了差距。方法:本文开发了一个概念性和实践性框架,用于记录学术工作流程中生成人工智能的使用。该框架由探索性的、非系统的来源和政策绘图、人工智能辅助的探索性证据绘图、对选定的近期文献的人工审查以及随附的开放科学框架材料的开发提供信息。这些步骤用于识别反复出现的文档期望和未解决的政策差距,并将其转化为实际的文档领域,特别注意任务特异性、比例性、角色特定文档、隐私敏感透明度和临床敏感背景。结果:该框架将披露与文档区分开来,并为人工智能的最小和扩展使用提出了文档字段。最小化文档用于低风险用途,如有限的语言修饰,而当人工智能支持文献合成、编码、分析、解释、手稿起草、同行评议相关工作、临床材料或研究程序时,建议扩展文档。该框架附带了可重用的OSF材料,包括文档模板、提示日志结构、声明示例、检查清单、临床编校指南和源代码跟踪材料。结论:人工智能使用披露表明人工智能被使用;文档使人工智能辅助的工作流程可跟踪、可检查和负责。特定任务、比例、角色和隐私敏感的文档方法可以支持负责任的人工智能使用,同时保护机密、患者相关、同行评议相关和方法敏感信息。随附的双语材料可在OSF上公开获取:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A439J。
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
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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