{"title":"通过prism - ethics知情范围审查指南,了解人工智能伦理指南制定中证据的使用情况","authors":"Simon Knight","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>There have been recent calls for new ethics guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. How should we go about developing such ethics guidance documents with respect to emerging contexts such as new technologies, and established domains such as research in education? This paper provides a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of approaches to ethics guideline development, the structures of ethics guidelines, and their audiences and purposes drawing on the context of education and AI.</div></div><div><h3>Search and synthesis approach</h3><div>A search of scholarly and grey literature was conducted to identify both ethics guidelines and material discussing their development; <em>n</em> = 592 distinct items were identified, including 182 that identified via recent reviews of AI ethics guidelines. <em>n</em> = 47 guideline-sets were identified as ‘guidelines’.</div></div><div><h3>Data extraction and analysis</h3><div>Guidelines were analysed with respect to their development approach, audience and purpose, and structural elements through which guidance is delivered; most included statements regarding their development approach (79 %) and audience (72 %). Where evidence underpinning the guidance was discussed, it was largely at a global content level (69 %), rather than with respect to the specific context/domain of the guideline use, principles drawn on, or approaches and strategies one might adopt in navigating ethical issues (23, 29, and 21 % respectively). Across the guidelines the only universal feature was the provision of an overview statement. We conclude with recommendations regarding the development of ethics guidelines, and their structure.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>No external funding was received.</div></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><div>The review was not pre-registered.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100281"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding use of evidence in AI ethics guidelines development through a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Simon Knight\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>There have been recent calls for new ethics guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. How should we go about developing such ethics guidance documents with respect to emerging contexts such as new technologies, and established domains such as research in education? This paper provides a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of approaches to ethics guideline development, the structures of ethics guidelines, and their audiences and purposes drawing on the context of education and AI.</div></div><div><h3>Search and synthesis approach</h3><div>A search of scholarly and grey literature was conducted to identify both ethics guidelines and material discussing their development; <em>n</em> = 592 distinct items were identified, including 182 that identified via recent reviews of AI ethics guidelines. <em>n</em> = 47 guideline-sets were identified as ‘guidelines’.</div></div><div><h3>Data extraction and analysis</h3><div>Guidelines were analysed with respect to their development approach, audience and purpose, and structural elements through which guidance is delivered; most included statements regarding their development approach (79 %) and audience (72 %). Where evidence underpinning the guidance was discussed, it was largely at a global content level (69 %), rather than with respect to the specific context/domain of the guideline use, principles drawn on, or approaches and strategies one might adopt in navigating ethical issues (23, 29, and 21 % respectively). Across the guidelines the only universal feature was the provision of an overview statement. We conclude with recommendations regarding the development of ethics guidelines, and their structure.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>No external funding was received.</div></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><div>The review was not pre-registered.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers and Education Open\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers and Education Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000400\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding use of evidence in AI ethics guidelines development through a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of guidelines
Objectives
There have been recent calls for new ethics guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. How should we go about developing such ethics guidance documents with respect to emerging contexts such as new technologies, and established domains such as research in education? This paper provides a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of approaches to ethics guideline development, the structures of ethics guidelines, and their audiences and purposes drawing on the context of education and AI.
Search and synthesis approach
A search of scholarly and grey literature was conducted to identify both ethics guidelines and material discussing their development; n = 592 distinct items were identified, including 182 that identified via recent reviews of AI ethics guidelines. n = 47 guideline-sets were identified as ‘guidelines’.
Data extraction and analysis
Guidelines were analysed with respect to their development approach, audience and purpose, and structural elements through which guidance is delivered; most included statements regarding their development approach (79 %) and audience (72 %). Where evidence underpinning the guidance was discussed, it was largely at a global content level (69 %), rather than with respect to the specific context/domain of the guideline use, principles drawn on, or approaches and strategies one might adopt in navigating ethical issues (23, 29, and 21 % respectively). Across the guidelines the only universal feature was the provision of an overview statement. We conclude with recommendations regarding the development of ethics guidelines, and their structure.