审稿人之死还是同行评审诚信之死?在同行评审中使用人工智能工具的挑战以及超越出版政策的必要性

V. Mollaki
{"title":"审稿人之死还是同行评审诚信之死?在同行评审中使用人工智能工具的挑战以及超越出版政策的必要性","authors":"V. Mollaki","doi":"10.1177/17470161231224552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peer review facilitates quality control and integrity of scientific research. Although publishing policies have adapted to include the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in the preparation of manuscripts by authors, there is a lack of guidelines or policies on whether peer reviewers can use such tools. The present article highlights the lack of policies on the use of AI tools in the peer review process (PRP) and argues that we need to go beyond policies by creating transparent procedures that will enable journals to investigate allegations of non-compliance and take decisions that will protect the integrity of the peer review system. Reviewers found to violate relevant policies must be excluded from the process to safeguard the integrity of the peer review system.","PeriodicalId":510000,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies\",\"authors\":\"V. Mollaki\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470161231224552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Peer review facilitates quality control and integrity of scientific research. Although publishing policies have adapted to include the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in the preparation of manuscripts by authors, there is a lack of guidelines or policies on whether peer reviewers can use such tools. The present article highlights the lack of policies on the use of AI tools in the peer review process (PRP) and argues that we need to go beyond policies by creating transparent procedures that will enable journals to investigate allegations of non-compliance and take decisions that will protect the integrity of the peer review system. Reviewers found to violate relevant policies must be excluded from the process to safeguard the integrity of the peer review system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":510000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224552\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224552","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同行评审有助于科学研究的质量控制和完整性。尽管出版政策已经调整,将人工智能(AI)工具(如聊天生成预训练转换器(ChatGPT))的使用纳入作者的稿件准备过程,但对于同行评审人员是否可以使用此类工具,却缺乏相关的指导原则或政策。本文强调了在同行评审过程(PRP)中使用人工智能工具的政策缺失,并认为我们需要超越政策,建立透明的程序,使期刊能够调查违规指控并做出决定,保护同行评审制度的完整性。被发现违反相关政策的审稿人必须被排除在程序之外,以保护同行评审制度的完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies
Peer review facilitates quality control and integrity of scientific research. Although publishing policies have adapted to include the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in the preparation of manuscripts by authors, there is a lack of guidelines or policies on whether peer reviewers can use such tools. The present article highlights the lack of policies on the use of AI tools in the peer review process (PRP) and argues that we need to go beyond policies by creating transparent procedures that will enable journals to investigate allegations of non-compliance and take decisions that will protect the integrity of the peer review system. Reviewers found to violate relevant policies must be excluded from the process to safeguard the integrity of the peer review system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信