生物伦理学和健康人文学科中的人工智能政策:出版商和期刊的比较分析。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Christopher Bobier, Daniel Rodger, Daniel Hurst
{"title":"生物伦理学和健康人文学科中的人工智能政策:出版商和期刊的比较分析。","authors":"Christopher Bobier, Daniel Rodger, Daniel Hurst","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) pose novel ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing. Although AI-related policies are emerging in many disciplines, little is known about the extent and clarity of AI guidance in bioethics and health humanities journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of publicly available journal lists from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, Health Humanities Consortium, and Association for Medical Humanities was supplemented with Google Scholar's top 20 bioethics journals ranked by h5-index. This yielded 54 unique journals, of which 50 remained after excluding those without a functional website or recent publications. AI policies were reviewed at the journal and publisher levels were assessed via website review, and editors were contacted for clarification when required. Data extraction was conducted by one author and independently verified by two additional researchers to ensure accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 50 journals analyzed, only 8 (16%) had a clear AI policy, while 27 (54%) were published by a publisher with an identifiable AI policy. Publisher AI policy statements were favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. Five (10%) of the 8 journals with a clear AI policy explicitly prohibited AI-generated text in submissions. The remaining 15 (30%) journals did not have a publicly available AI policy. Ten of these 15 journals confirmed an absence of any formal AI policy, and seven indicated that discussion to develop guidelines was ongoing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently inconsistent. Some journals explicitly ban AI-generated text, whereas others permit AI-assisted writing, with publisher policies being favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. The lack of standardized AI guidelines underscores the need for further discussion to ensure the ethical and responsible integration of AI in academic publishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"79"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Bobier, Daniel Rodger, Daniel Hurst\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) pose novel ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing. Although AI-related policies are emerging in many disciplines, little is known about the extent and clarity of AI guidance in bioethics and health humanities journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of publicly available journal lists from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, Health Humanities Consortium, and Association for Medical Humanities was supplemented with Google Scholar's top 20 bioethics journals ranked by h5-index. This yielded 54 unique journals, of which 50 remained after excluding those without a functional website or recent publications. AI policies were reviewed at the journal and publisher levels were assessed via website review, and editors were contacted for clarification when required. Data extraction was conducted by one author and independently verified by two additional researchers to ensure accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 50 journals analyzed, only 8 (16%) had a clear AI policy, while 27 (54%) were published by a publisher with an identifiable AI policy. Publisher AI policy statements were favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. Five (10%) of the 8 journals with a clear AI policy explicitly prohibited AI-generated text in submissions. The remaining 15 (30%) journals did not have a publicly available AI policy. Ten of these 15 journals confirmed an absence of any formal AI policy, and seven indicated that discussion to develop guidelines was ongoing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently inconsistent. Some journals explicitly ban AI-generated text, whereas others permit AI-assisted writing, with publisher policies being favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. The lack of standardized AI guidelines underscores the need for further discussion to ensure the ethical and responsible integration of AI in academic publishing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:人工智能(AI)的快速发展给学术出版带来了新的伦理和实践挑战。尽管许多学科都出现了与人工智能相关的政策,但人们对生物伦理学和健康人文学科期刊中人工智能指导的范围和清晰度知之甚少。方法:检索美国生命伦理与人文学会、健康人文学会和医学人文学会公开期刊列表,并辅以谷歌Scholar按h5指数排名前20位的生物伦理期刊。这产生了54种独特的期刊,其中50种在排除那些没有功能网站或最近发表的期刊后仍然存在。人工智能政策在期刊上进行了审查,通过网站审查对出版商进行了评估,并在需要时联系编辑进行澄清。数据提取由一名作者进行,并由另外两名研究人员独立验证,以确保准确性。结果:在分析的50种期刊中,只有8种(16%)具有明确的人工智能政策,而27种(54%)由具有可识别的人工智能政策的出版商出版。出版商的人工智能政策声明有利于考虑人工智能辅助稿件。有明确AI政策的8家期刊中有5家(10%)明确禁止在投稿中使用AI生成的文本。其余15种(30%)期刊没有公开的人工智能政策。这15种期刊中有10种确认没有任何正式的人工智能政策,7种表示正在讨论制定指导方针。结论:目前生物伦理学和卫生人文期刊采用人工智能政策不一致。一些期刊明确禁止人工智能生成的文本,而另一些则允许人工智能辅助写作,出版商的政策有利于考虑人工智能辅助的手稿。缺乏标准化的人工智能指南强调了进一步讨论的必要性,以确保人工智能在学术出版中的道德和负责任的整合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals.

Introduction: Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) pose novel ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing. Although AI-related policies are emerging in many disciplines, little is known about the extent and clarity of AI guidance in bioethics and health humanities journals.

Methods: A search of publicly available journal lists from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, Health Humanities Consortium, and Association for Medical Humanities was supplemented with Google Scholar's top 20 bioethics journals ranked by h5-index. This yielded 54 unique journals, of which 50 remained after excluding those without a functional website or recent publications. AI policies were reviewed at the journal and publisher levels were assessed via website review, and editors were contacted for clarification when required. Data extraction was conducted by one author and independently verified by two additional researchers to ensure accuracy.

Results: Of the 50 journals analyzed, only 8 (16%) had a clear AI policy, while 27 (54%) were published by a publisher with an identifiable AI policy. Publisher AI policy statements were favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. Five (10%) of the 8 journals with a clear AI policy explicitly prohibited AI-generated text in submissions. The remaining 15 (30%) journals did not have a publicly available AI policy. Ten of these 15 journals confirmed an absence of any formal AI policy, and seven indicated that discussion to develop guidelines was ongoing.

Conclusion: The adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently inconsistent. Some journals explicitly ban AI-generated text, whereas others permit AI-assisted writing, with publisher policies being favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. The lack of standardized AI guidelines underscores the need for further discussion to ensure the ethical and responsible integration of AI in academic publishing.

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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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