Policies on Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Among Academic Publishers: A Cross-Sectional Audit

Daivat Bhavsar, Laura Duffy, Hamin Jo, Cynthia Lokker, R. Brian Haynes, Alfonso Iorio, Ana Marusic, Jeremy Y. Ng
{"title":"Policies on Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Among Academic Publishers: A Cross-Sectional Audit","authors":"Daivat Bhavsar, Laura Duffy, Hamin Jo, Cynthia Lokker, R. Brian Haynes, Alfonso Iorio, Ana Marusic, Jeremy Y. Ng","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.19.24309148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are novel computer programs that can generate text or content in a natural language format. Academic publishers are adapting to the transformative role of AI chatbots in producing or facilitating scientific research. This study aimed to examine the policies established by scientific, technical, and medical academic publishers for defining and regulating the responsible authors' use of AI chatbots. Methods: This study performed a cross-sectional audit on the publicly available policies of 163 academic publishers, indexed as members of the International Association of the Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM). Data extraction of publicly available policies on the webpages of all STM academic publishers was performed independently in duplicate with content analysis reviewed by a third contributor (September 2023 - December 2023). Data was categorized into policy elements, such as 'proofreading' and 'image generation'. Counts and percentages of 'yes' (i.e., permitted), 'no', and 'N/A' were established for each policy element. Results: A total of 56/163 (34.4%) STM academic publishers had a publicly available policy guiding the authors' use of AI chatbots. No policy allowed authorship accreditations for AI chatbots (or other generative technology). Most (49/56 or 87.5%) required specific disclosure of AI chatbot use. Four policies/publishers placed a complete ban on the use of AI tools by authors.\nConclusions: Only a third of STM academic publishers had publicly available policies as of December 2023. A re-examination of all STM members in 12-18 months may uncover evolving approaches toward AI chatbot use with more academic publishers having a policy.","PeriodicalId":501386,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.19.24309148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are novel computer programs that can generate text or content in a natural language format. Academic publishers are adapting to the transformative role of AI chatbots in producing or facilitating scientific research. This study aimed to examine the policies established by scientific, technical, and medical academic publishers for defining and regulating the responsible authors' use of AI chatbots. Methods: This study performed a cross-sectional audit on the publicly available policies of 163 academic publishers, indexed as members of the International Association of the Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM). Data extraction of publicly available policies on the webpages of all STM academic publishers was performed independently in duplicate with content analysis reviewed by a third contributor (September 2023 - December 2023). Data was categorized into policy elements, such as 'proofreading' and 'image generation'. Counts and percentages of 'yes' (i.e., permitted), 'no', and 'N/A' were established for each policy element. Results: A total of 56/163 (34.4%) STM academic publishers had a publicly available policy guiding the authors' use of AI chatbots. No policy allowed authorship accreditations for AI chatbots (or other generative technology). Most (49/56 or 87.5%) required specific disclosure of AI chatbot use. Four policies/publishers placed a complete ban on the use of AI tools by authors. Conclusions: Only a third of STM academic publishers had publicly available policies as of December 2023. A re-examination of all STM members in 12-18 months may uncover evolving approaches toward AI chatbot use with more academic publishers having a policy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学术出版社对人工智能聊天机器人的政策:横向审计
背景介绍人工智能(AI)聊天机器人是一种能以自然语言格式生成文本或内容的新型计算机程序。学术出版商正在适应人工智能聊天机器人在生产或促进科学研究方面的变革性作用。本研究旨在考察科学、技术和医学学术出版商制定的政策,以界定和规范责任作者对人工智能聊天机器人的使用。研究方法本研究对国际科学、技术和医学出版商协会(STM)收录的 163 家学术出版商的公开政策进行了横向审计。对所有 STM 学术出版商网页上的公开政策进行了数据提取,并由第三位撰稿人对内容分析进行审核(2023 年 9 月至 2023 年 12 月)。数据按政策要素分类,如 "校对 "和 "图像生成"。为每个政策要素确定了 "是"(即允许)、"否 "和 "不适用 "的计数和百分比。结果:共有 56/163 家(34.4%)STM 学术出版社公开发布了指导作者使用人工智能聊天机器人的政策。没有任何政策允许对人工智能聊天机器人(或其他生成技术)进行作者资格认证。大多数(49/56 或 87.5%)政策要求具体披露人工智能聊天机器人的使用情况。四项政策/出版商完全禁止作者使用人工智能工具:截至 2023 年 12 月,只有三分之一的 STM 学术出版商公开了相关政策。12-18 个月后对 STM 所有成员的重新审查可能会发现,随着越来越多的学术出版商制定了相关政策,人工智能聊天机器人的使用方法也在不断演变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE IN OUR OWN WAY" : KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION TOOLS TO PROMOTE BEST PRACTICES IN UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY Geospatial Analysis of the Association between Medicaid Ex-pansion, Minimum Wage Policies, and Alzheimer's Disease Dementia Prevalence in the United States The clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing continence issues resulting from birth trauma: a rapid review Supporting women, girls and people who menstruate to participate in physical activity - Rapid evidence summary Performance of the Washington Group Questions in Measuring Blindness and Deafness
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1