Policies on artificial intelligence chatbots among academic publishers: a cross-sectional audit.

IF 10.7 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1186/s41073-025-00158-y
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":"10.1186/s41073-025-00158-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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 authors' responsible use of AI chatbots.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study performed a cross-sectional audit on the publicly available policies of 162 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 'no available information' (NAI) were established for each policy element.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 56/162 (34.6%) STM academic publishers had a publicly available policy guiding the authors' use of AI chatbots. No policy allowed authorship for AI chatbots (or other AI tool). 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 chatbots by authors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"10 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11869395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00158-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","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 authors' responsible use of AI chatbots.

Methods: This study performed a cross-sectional audit on the publicly available policies of 162 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 'no available information' (NAI) were established for each policy element.

Results: A total of 56/162 (34.6%) STM academic publishers had a publicly available policy guiding the authors' use of AI chatbots. No policy allowed authorship for AI chatbots (or other AI tool). 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 chatbots 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.

Abstract Image

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
学术出版商对人工智能聊天机器人的政策:一项横断面审计。
背景:人工智能(AI)聊天机器人是一种新颖的计算机程序,可以以自然语言格式生成文本或内容。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。本研究旨在研究科学、技术和医学学术出版商为定义和规范作者负责任地使用人工智能聊天机器人而制定的政策。方法:本研究对162家作为国际科学、技术和医学出版商协会(STM)成员索引的学术出版商的公开政策进行了横断面审计。所有STM学术出版商网页上公开可用政策的数据提取是独立进行的,一式两份,内容分析由第三位贡献者审查(2023年9月至2023年12月)。数据被归类为政策要素,如“校对”和“图像生成”。为每个策略元素建立“是”(即允许)、“否”和“无可用信息”(NAI)的计数和百分比。结果:共有56/162 (34.6%)STM学术出版商制定了指导作者使用AI聊天机器人的公开政策。没有政策允许AI聊天机器人(或其他AI工具)的作者身份。大多数(49/56或87.5%)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聊天机器人。结论:截至2023年12月,只有三分之一的STM学术出版商有公开的政策。在12-18个月内对所有STM成员进行重新检查,可能会发现越来越多的学术出版商制定了相关政策,从而发现使用人工智能聊天机器人的方法在不断发展。
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
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study. Using reporting guidelines to improve the reproducibility of cooking Christmas tree meringues: the "People tasting trees" cluster-randomised controlled trial. The disclosure of potential conflicts of interest among editors and members of editorial boards in leading ethics journals. Research methodology education in Europe: a multi-country, cross-disciplinary survey of current practices and perspectives. AI in peer review: can artificial intelligence be an ally in reducing gender and geographical gaps in peer review? A randomized trial.
×
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:604180095
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