在生成人工智能时代进行饮食失调研究:来自国际饮食失调杂志的研究人员观点和指南。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Jake Linardon, Jennifer J Thomas, Scott J Crow, Ata Ghaderi, Anja Hilbert, Kelly L Klump, Tracey D Wade, B Timothy Walsh, Ruth Weissman
{"title":"在生成人工智能时代进行饮食失调研究:来自国际饮食失调杂志的研究人员观点和指南。","authors":"Jake Linardon, Jennifer J Thomas, Scott J Crow, Ata Ghaderi, Anja Hilbert, Kelly L Klump, Tracey D Wade, B Timothy Walsh, Ruth Weissman","doi":"10.1002/eat.24543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) could transform how science is conducted, supporting researchers with writing, coding, peer review, and evidence synthesis. However, it is not yet known how eating disorder researchers utilize generative AI, and uncertainty remains regarding its safe, ethical, and transparent use. The Executive Committee of the International Journal of Eating Disorders disseminated a survey for eating disorder researchers investigating their practices and perspectives on generative AI, with the goal of informing guidelines on appropriate AI use for authors, reviewers, and editors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A survey was distributed globally via eating disorder organizations, professional networks, and individual researchers. Researchers (N = 158) of various career stages completed the survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly three-quarters (70%) reported using generative AI for research, most commonly for proofreading written work or coding support. Nine in 10 took steps to verify AI-generated output, and 1 in 3 disclosed their use of AI. Only 21% reported using AI for peer review, typically in a limited capacity (e.g., proofreading), and always with full human oversight. Authors were comfortable for editors to use AI to support administrative tasks (i.e., selecting reviewers, detecting plagiarism). However, many participants acknowledged key drawbacks of generative AI, including concerns about inaccurate outputs, ethical issues such as plagiarism, the potential for reduced critical thinking, and anticipated negative impacts on the future of eating disorder research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These insights informed the development of field-specific guidelines to support authors, reviewers, and editors in the appropriate use of generative AI in eating disorder research and publishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conducting Eating Disorder Research in the Era of Generative AI: Researcher Perspectives and Guidelines From the International Journal of Eating Disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Jake Linardon, Jennifer J Thomas, Scott J Crow, Ata Ghaderi, Anja Hilbert, Kelly L Klump, Tracey D Wade, B Timothy Walsh, Ruth Weissman\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eat.24543\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) could transform how science is conducted, supporting researchers with writing, coding, peer review, and evidence synthesis. However, it is not yet known how eating disorder researchers utilize generative AI, and uncertainty remains regarding its safe, ethical, and transparent use. The Executive Committee of the International Journal of Eating Disorders disseminated a survey for eating disorder researchers investigating their practices and perspectives on generative AI, with the goal of informing guidelines on appropriate AI use for authors, reviewers, and editors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A survey was distributed globally via eating disorder organizations, professional networks, and individual researchers. Researchers (N = 158) of various career stages completed the survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly three-quarters (70%) reported using generative AI for research, most commonly for proofreading written work or coding support. Nine in 10 took steps to verify AI-generated output, and 1 in 3 disclosed their use of AI. Only 21% reported using AI for peer review, typically in a limited capacity (e.g., proofreading), and always with full human oversight. Authors were comfortable for editors to use AI to support administrative tasks (i.e., selecting reviewers, detecting plagiarism). However, many participants acknowledged key drawbacks of generative AI, including concerns about inaccurate outputs, ethical issues such as plagiarism, the potential for reduced critical thinking, and anticipated negative impacts on the future of eating disorder research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These insights informed the development of field-specific guidelines to support authors, reviewers, and editors in the appropriate use of generative AI in eating disorder research and publishing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24543\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24543","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:生成式人工智能(AI)可以改变科学的开展方式,为研究人员提供写作、编码、同行评审和证据合成方面的支持。然而,目前尚不清楚饮食失调研究人员如何利用生成式人工智能,其使用的安全性、伦理性和透明度仍然存在不确定性。《国际饮食失调杂志》执行委员会发布了一项针对饮食失调研究人员的调查,调查他们在生成式人工智能方面的实践和观点,目的是为作者、审稿人和编辑提供适当使用人工智能的指南。方法:通过饮食失调组织、专业网络和个人研究人员在全球范围内进行调查。不同职业阶段的研究人员(N = 158)完成了调查。结果:近四分之三(70%)的受访者表示使用生成式人工智能进行研究,最常见的是校对书面工作或编码支持。十分之九的人采取措施验证人工智能生成的输出,三分之一的人透露他们使用过人工智能。只有21%的人表示使用人工智能进行同行评议,通常是在有限的能力下(例如,校对),并且总是在完全的人工监督下。作者对编辑使用人工智能来支持管理任务(即选择审稿人,检测抄袭)感到满意。然而,许多参与者承认了生成式人工智能的主要缺点,包括对产出不准确的担忧、抄袭等伦理问题、批判性思维减少的可能性,以及对未来饮食失调研究的预期负面影响。结论:这些见解为特定领域指南的制定提供了信息,以支持作者、审稿人和编辑在饮食失调研究和出版中适当使用生成式人工智能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conducting Eating Disorder Research in the Era of Generative AI: Researcher Perspectives and Guidelines From the International Journal of Eating Disorders.

Objectives: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) could transform how science is conducted, supporting researchers with writing, coding, peer review, and evidence synthesis. However, it is not yet known how eating disorder researchers utilize generative AI, and uncertainty remains regarding its safe, ethical, and transparent use. The Executive Committee of the International Journal of Eating Disorders disseminated a survey for eating disorder researchers investigating their practices and perspectives on generative AI, with the goal of informing guidelines on appropriate AI use for authors, reviewers, and editors.

Method: A survey was distributed globally via eating disorder organizations, professional networks, and individual researchers. Researchers (N = 158) of various career stages completed the survey.

Results: Nearly three-quarters (70%) reported using generative AI for research, most commonly for proofreading written work or coding support. Nine in 10 took steps to verify AI-generated output, and 1 in 3 disclosed their use of AI. Only 21% reported using AI for peer review, typically in a limited capacity (e.g., proofreading), and always with full human oversight. Authors were comfortable for editors to use AI to support administrative tasks (i.e., selecting reviewers, detecting plagiarism). However, many participants acknowledged key drawbacks of generative AI, including concerns about inaccurate outputs, ethical issues such as plagiarism, the potential for reduced critical thinking, and anticipated negative impacts on the future of eating disorder research.

Conclusion: These insights informed the development of field-specific guidelines to support authors, reviewers, and editors in the appropriate use of generative AI in eating disorder research and 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
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.
×
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