Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency While Preserving Integrity DOI Creative Commons
Bohdana Doskaliuk, Olena Zimba, Marlen Yessirkepov

et al.

Journal of Korean Medical Science, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 40(7)

Published: Jan. 1, 2025

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various aspects scientific research, including academic publishing and peer review. In recent years, AI tools such as large language models have demonstrated their capability to streamline numerous tasks traditionally handled by human editors reviewers. These applications range from automated grammar checks plagiarism detection, format compliance, even preliminary assessment research significance. While substantially benefits the efficiency accuracy processes, its integration raises critical ethical methodological questions, particularly in lacks subtle understanding complex content that expertise provides, posing challenges evaluating novelty Additionally, there are risks associated with over-reliance on AI, potential biases algorithms, concerns related transparency, accountability, data privacy. This review evaluates perspectives within community integrating publishing. By exploring both AI's limitations, we aim offer practical recommendations ensure is used a supportive tool, supporting but not replacing expertise. Such guidelines essential for preserving integrity quality work while benefiting efficiencies editorial processes.

Language: Английский

Reporting Use of AI in Research and Scholarly Publication—JAMA Network Guidance DOI
Annette Flanagin, Romain Pirracchio, Rohan Khera

et al.

JAMA, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 331(13), P. 1096 - 1096

Published: March 7, 2024

Nonhuman "Authors" and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication Medical Knowledge

Language: Английский

Citations

26
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Academic Surgery: Ethical Implications and Transformative Potential DOI Creative Commons
Jamie R. Robinson, Anne M. Stey, David F. Schneider

et al.

Journal of Surgical Research, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Feb. 1, 2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being used in medicine due to its advanced capabilities image and video recognition, clinical decision support, surgical education, administrative task automation. Large language models such as OpenAI's Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4 Google's Bard have particularly revolutionized text generation, offering substantial benefits for the academic surgeon, including aiding manuscript grant writing. However, integrating AI into surgery necessitates addressing ethical concerns bias, transparency, intellectual property. This paper provides guidelines recommendations based on current literature around opportunities challenges of surgery. We discuss underlying mechanisms large models, their potential biases, importance responsible usage. Furthermore, we explore implications documentation, highlighting improved efficiency necessary privacy concerns. review also addresses critical issue property dilemmas posed by AI-generated innovations university settings. Finally, propose adoption environments, stressing need training, robust governance frameworks ensure enhances, rather than undermines, integrity patient care.

Language: Английский

Citations

2
Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review: Insights from Journal Reviewers DOI Creative Commons
Saman Ebadi, Hassan Nejadghanbar,

Ahmed Rawdhan Salman

et al.

Journal of Academic Ethics, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Feb. 11, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

2
Evaluating the Application of Large Language Models in Clinical Research Contexts DOI Creative Commons
Roy H. Perlis,

Stephan D. Fihn

JAMA Network Open, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 6(10), P. e2335924 - e2335924

Published: Oct. 2, 2023

Rachel S. Goodman, MBA; J. Randall Patrinely, MD, Cosby A. Stone Jr, MPH; Eli Zimmerman, MD; Rebecca R. Donald, Sam Chang, Sean T. Berkowitz, Avni P. Finn, Eiman Jahangir, Elizabeth Scoville, MSCI; Tyler Reese, Debra L. Friedman, MS; Julie Bastarache, Yuri F. van der Heijden, Jordan Wright, PhD; Fei Ye, Nicholas Carter, Matthew Alexander, Jennifer H. Choe, Cody Chastain, John Zic, MMHC; Sara N. Horst, Isik Turker, MSc; Rajiv Agarwal, Evan Osmundson, Kamran Idrees, MSCI, Colleen M. Kiernan, Chandrasekhar Padmanabhan, Christina E. Bailey, Cameron Schlegel, Lola B. Chambless, Michael K. Gibson, Travis Osterman, DO, Lee Wheless, Douglas Johnson, MSCI

Language: Английский

Citations

33
Integrating AI in medical education: embracing ethical usage and critical understanding DOI Creative Commons
Faiza Alam, Mei Ann Lim, Ihsan Nazurah Zulkipli

et al.

Frontiers in Medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 10

Published: Oct. 13, 2023

OPINION article Front. Med., 13 October 2023Sec. Healthcare Professions Education Volume 10 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1279707

Language: Английский

Citations

27
When AI goes wrong: Fatal errors in oncological research reviewing assistance Open AI based DOI Creative Commons

Marwan Al‐Raeei

Oral Oncology Reports, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 10, P. 100292 - 100292

Published: March 21, 2024

In this letter to the editor, use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, specifically Chat-GPT based "Review Assistant" by Elsevier, for reviewing scientific articles is discussed. While tool has many benefits such as detecting linguistic and typographical errors in manuscripts, it also limitations. An example highlighted where AI gave an incorrect potentially dangerous answer regarding bond energies molecules oral tumor. This mistake shows that research evaluation can be a double-edged sword, may provide inaccurate information could have serious consequences.

Language: Английский

Citations

11
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence DOI Creative Commons
Zafer Koçak

Journal of Korean Medical Science, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 39(33)

Published: Jan. 1, 2024

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While responsible use AI brings many innovations benefits humanity, its unethical poses a serious threat scientific integrity literature. Even absence malicious use, Chatbot output itself, software based on AI, carries risk containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations plagiarism. Therefore, complex algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency accountability, requiring development ethical rules protect integrity. Unfortunately, writing codes cannot keep up with pace implementation technology. main purpose this narrative review inform readers, authors, reviewers editors approaches publication ethics era AI. It specifically focuses tips how disclose your manuscript, avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, current standards for retraction.

Language: Английский

Citations

9
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review Among Top 100 Medical Journals DOI Creative Commons
Zhiqiang Li, Huilin Xu, Huijuan Cao

et al.

JAMA Network Open, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 7(12), P. e2448609 - e2448609

Published: Dec. 3, 2024

This cross-sectional study of 100 top medical journals examines policies for use artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI in peer review.

Language: Английский

Citations

9
Celebrating 100 Years of Publishing Research in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery DOI
Jay F. Piccirillo

JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Jan. 30, 2025

This year, JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery celebrates its 100th year of continuous publication. As we celebrate 100 years publication, look back on our journey, from modest beginnings to being a valued contributor medical knowledge.

Language: Английский

Citations

1
Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics DOI Creative Commons
John P. A. Ioannidis, Zacharias Maniadis

Internal and Emergency Medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 19(1), P. 39 - 47

Published: Nov. 3, 2023

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping rewarding the careers of millions scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be gamed current "publish or perish" "get cited environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, journal-based as well with outright fabrication. Different patterns discussed, massive authorship papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work over-attribution to too many people (salami slicing credit), self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor paper mills spurious content papers, publications studies demanding designs. For all those quantitative analyses able help detection placing them into perspective. A portfolio also include best practices (e.g., data sharing, code protocol registration, replications) poor signs image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent that inform about strengthen legacy appraisals scientific work.

Language: Английский

Citations

21