{"title":"护理学术审稿人对人工智能辅助同行评议的看法：伦理挑战与接受","authors":"Sayed Ibrahim Ali, Mostafa Shaban","doi":"10.1111/inr.70100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to explore the perceptions, experiences, and ethical considerations of nursing academic reviewers regarding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the peer review process, with a focus on acceptance dynamics and implications for nursing journal policy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A qualitative descriptive design was employed, guided by an interpretivist approach and reported according to the COREQ checklist.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Fifteen nursing academic reviewers from four countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and the United States) were recruited via snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and March 2025 using Zoom video conferencing. Interviews were held in Arabic or English, transcribed verbatim, translated as needed, and thematically analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis per Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Five themes were generated: perceived benefits of AI (efficiency, fairness, and workload reduction), ethical concerns (transparency, bias, and data privacy), risks to reviewer autonomy and judgment, divergent attitudes toward AI adoption, and the need for clear guidelines and training. Participants expressed cautious optimism, emphasizing that while AI tools may enhance consistency and reduce administrative burden, they raise complex ethical questions and must not replace human judgment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The integration of AI into peer review processes presents both opportunities and ethical challenges. The nursing academic reviewers in this study recognize the utility of AI for supporting routine tasks but remain concerned about algorithmic bias, transparency, and its impact on scholarly independence. Ethical AI adoption requires structured policies and capacity-building initiatives.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications for nursing practice and policy</h3>\n \n <p>To uphold scholarly integrity, nursing journals and academic institutions should develop transparent AI governance frameworks, invest in reviewer education on responsible AI use, and preserve the central role of human judgment in peer review. These steps are vital to ensuring AI complements rather than compromises research quality and ethics in global nursing scholarship.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":54931,"journal":{"name":"International Nursing Review","volume":"72 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nursing Academic Reviewers’ Perspectives on AI-Assisted Peer Review: Ethical Challenges and Acceptance\",\"authors\":\"Sayed Ibrahim Ali, Mostafa Shaban\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/inr.70100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study aimed to explore the perceptions, experiences, and ethical considerations of nursing academic reviewers regarding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the peer review process, with a focus on acceptance dynamics and implications for nursing journal policy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>A qualitative descriptive design was employed, guided by an interpretivist approach and reported according to the COREQ checklist.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Fifteen nursing academic reviewers from four countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and the United States) were recruited via snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and March 2025 using Zoom video conferencing. Interviews were held in Arabic or English, transcribed verbatim, translated as needed, and thematically analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis per Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Five themes were generated: perceived benefits of AI (efficiency, fairness, and workload reduction), ethical concerns (transparency, bias, and data privacy), risks to reviewer autonomy and judgment, divergent attitudes toward AI adoption, and the need for clear guidelines and training. Participants expressed cautious optimism, emphasizing that while AI tools may enhance consistency and reduce administrative burden, they raise complex ethical questions and must not replace human judgment.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The integration of AI into peer review processes presents both opportunities and ethical challenges. The nursing academic reviewers in this study recognize the utility of AI for supporting routine tasks but remain concerned about algorithmic bias, transparency, and its impact on scholarly independence. Ethical AI adoption requires structured policies and capacity-building initiatives.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Implications for nursing practice and policy</h3>\\n \\n <p>To uphold scholarly integrity, nursing journals and academic institutions should develop transparent AI governance frameworks, invest in reviewer education on responsible AI use, and preserve the central role of human judgment in peer review. These steps are vital to ensuring AI complements rather than compromises research quality and ethics in global nursing scholarship.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54931,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Nursing Review\",\"volume\":\"72 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Nursing Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inr.70100\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Nursing Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inr.70100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Nursing Academic Reviewers’ Perspectives on AI-Assisted Peer Review: Ethical Challenges and Acceptance
Aim
This study aimed to explore the perceptions, experiences, and ethical considerations of nursing academic reviewers regarding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the peer review process, with a focus on acceptance dynamics and implications for nursing journal policy.
Design
A qualitative descriptive design was employed, guided by an interpretivist approach and reported according to the COREQ checklist.
Methods
Fifteen nursing academic reviewers from four countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and the United States) were recruited via snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and March 2025 using Zoom video conferencing. Interviews were held in Arabic or English, transcribed verbatim, translated as needed, and thematically analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis per Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework.
Results
Five themes were generated: perceived benefits of AI (efficiency, fairness, and workload reduction), ethical concerns (transparency, bias, and data privacy), risks to reviewer autonomy and judgment, divergent attitudes toward AI adoption, and the need for clear guidelines and training. Participants expressed cautious optimism, emphasizing that while AI tools may enhance consistency and reduce administrative burden, they raise complex ethical questions and must not replace human judgment.
Conclusion
The integration of AI into peer review processes presents both opportunities and ethical challenges. The nursing academic reviewers in this study recognize the utility of AI for supporting routine tasks but remain concerned about algorithmic bias, transparency, and its impact on scholarly independence. Ethical AI adoption requires structured policies and capacity-building initiatives.
Implications for nursing practice and policy
To uphold scholarly integrity, nursing journals and academic institutions should develop transparent AI governance frameworks, invest in reviewer education on responsible AI use, and preserve the central role of human judgment in peer review. These steps are vital to ensuring AI complements rather than compromises research quality and ethics in global nursing scholarship.
期刊介绍：
International Nursing Review is a key resource for nurses world-wide. Articles are encouraged that reflect the ICN"s five key values: flexibility, inclusiveness, partnership, achievement and visionary leadership. Authors are encouraged to identify the relevance of local issues for the global community and to describe their work and to document their experience.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
