Tag: peer review

We must set the rules for AI use in scientific writing and peer review

Admin Leave a comment
A group of scientists and academics in lab coats are seated around a conference table in a modern meeting room with a city skyline visible through a large window. Above them, a glowing holographic screen displays "GOVERNING AI IN SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION," with two main columns: "Scientific Writing" and "Peer Review," each listing specific regulations and ethical considerations for AI use, such as authorship, plagiarism checks, and bias detection. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
As AI’s role in academic research rapidly expands, establishing clear guidelines for its use in scientific writing and peer review has become an urgent imperative. This image depicts a panel of experts discussing these crucial regulations, emphasizing the need to set ethical frameworks to maintain integrity, transparency, and fairness in the scientific publication process. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Times Higher Education

Summary

George Chalhoub argues that as AI becomes more entrenched in research and publication, the academic community urgently needs clear, enforceable guidelines for its use in scientific writing and peer review. He cites evidence of undeclared AI involvement in manuscripts and reviews, hidden prompts, and inflated submission volume. To maintain credibility, journals must require authors and reviewers to disclose AI use, forbid AI as a co-author, and ensure human oversight. Chalhoub frames AI as a tool—not a decision-maker—and insists that accountability, transparency, and common standards must guard against erosion of trust in the scientific record.

Key Points

  • Significant prevalence of AI content: e.g. 13.5 % of 2024 abstracts bore signs of LLM use, with some fields reaching 40 %.
  • Up to ~17 % of peer review sentences may already be generated by AI, per studies of review corpora.
  • Some authors embed hidden prompts (e.g. white-text instructions) to influence AI-powered reviewing tools.
  • Core requirements: disclosure of AI use (tools, versions, roles), human responsibility for verification, no listing of AI as author.
  • Journals should adopt policies involving audits, sanctions for misuse, and shared frameworks via organisations like COPE and STM.

Keywords

, , , ,

URL

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/we-must-set-rules-ai-use-scientific-writing-and-peer-review

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News