- \n
- The increasing use of AI tools in academic publishing calls for policies that keep pace with the myriad ways that authors and researchers use AI.<\/li>\n
- An AI risk register that looks at specific risks inherent in individual tools and the ways they are used, plus collaboration among publishers to create standardised guidance, could be the key.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/AdobeStock_798729061.jpeg?resize=1024%2C574&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nProtecting the integrity of the scientific record becomes more challenging<\/a> as the role of AI in academic publishing<\/a> expands. In a recent article<\/a> for The Scholarly Kitchen<\/a>, Avi Staiman expresses his concerns about the lack of adequate publisher policies on AI use<\/a> and sets out \u00a0what publishers could do to step up their game.<\/p>\n
Where do current policies come up short?<\/strong><\/p>\n
Staiman reports that while authors are eager to implement AI, most lack the expertise to navigate its full potential while protecting research integrity. For instance, Oxford University Press (OUP<\/a>) reported that 76% of researchers use AI in their research, but 72% are also unaware of their institution\u2019s policies on AI.<\/p>\n
\n
76% of researchers use AI in their research, but 72% are also unaware of their institution\u2019s policies on AI.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Alongside this, publishers\u2019 struggles to keep up to date with the latest developments in AI hamper the development of suitable guidelines. Limitations of current policies include:<\/p>\n
- \n
- lack of clarity on the roles of authors versus AI in individual cases (for example, who created the content vs who refined it)<\/li>\n
- failure to consider the wide range of available AI tools and their differing uses (substantive vs non-substantive AI use)<\/li>\n
- oversimplified AI policies that equate to blanket disclosure statements on the use of AI only, rather than looking at what was used and how.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Staiman argues that, given the diversity of AI tools that now exist \u2014 from those capable of performing statistical analysis, such as JuliusAI<\/a>, to those assisting with literature searches, like Scite<\/a> \u2014 the ways in which we tackle transparency and regulation need to evolve.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Aspirations_Andrea-Luengas-Martinez_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n