编辑关于在学术期刊出版中负责任地使用生成人工智能技术的声明。

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500182
Gregory E. Kaebnick, David Christopher Magnus, Audiey Kao, Mohammad Hosseini, David Resnik, Veljko Dubljević, Christy Rentmeester, Bert Gordijn, Mark J. Cherry
{"title":"编辑关于在学术期刊出版中负责任地使用生成人工智能技术的声明。","authors":"Gregory E. Kaebnick,&nbsp;David Christopher Magnus,&nbsp;Audiey Kao,&nbsp;Mohammad Hosseini,&nbsp;David Resnik,&nbsp;Veljko Dubljević,&nbsp;Christy Rentmeester,&nbsp;Bert Gordijn,&nbsp;Mark J. Cherry","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"45 5","pages":"39-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500182","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing\",\"authors\":\"Gregory E. Kaebnick,&nbsp;David Christopher Magnus,&nbsp;Audiey Kao,&nbsp;Mohammad Hosseini,&nbsp;David Resnik,&nbsp;Veljko Dubljević,&nbsp;Christy Rentmeester,&nbsp;Bert Gordijn,&nbsp;Mark J. Cherry\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"45 5\",\"pages\":\"39-43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500182\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500182\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生成人工智能(AI)有可能改变学术出版的许多方面。作者、同行评审员和编辑可能会以各种方式使用人工智能,这些使用可能会扩大他们现有的工作,也可能会取代它。我们是生物伦理学和人文学科期刊的编辑,一直在思考这一持续变革的影响。我们认为,生成性人工智能可能会对激励我们工作的目标构成威胁,但也可能对实现这些目标有价值。为了促进关于如何使用生成性人工智能的更广泛对话,我们为其在学术出版中的使用制定了一套初步建议。我们希望这里提出的建议和理由将有助于学术界更深入地理解人工智能在负责任的学术工作中的优势、局限性和挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

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
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Prospect of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Ethics Review Ethical Issues Faced by Data Monitoring Committees: Results from an Exploratory Qualitative Study The Ethical Case for Decentralized Clinical Trials The European Health Data Space as a Case Study
×
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