Kaebnick Gregory E, Magnus David Christopher, Kao Audiey, Hosseini Mohammad, Resnik David, Dubljević Veljko, Rentmeester Christy, Gordijn Bert, Cherry Mark J, Maschke Karen J, McMillan John, Rasmussen Lisa M, Haupt Laura, Schüklenk Udo, Chadwick Ruth, Diniz Debora
Editor of the Hastings Center Report.
Editor in chief of the American Journal of Bioethics.
Ethics Hum Res. 2023 Sep-Oct;45(5):39-43. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500182.
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.
生成式人工智能(AI)有潜力改变学术出版的许多方面。作者、同行评审人员和编辑可能会以多种方式使用AI,这些用途可能会增强他们现有的工作,也可能旨在取而代之。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,生成式AI可能对推动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式AI的更广泛讨论,我们制定了一套关于其在学术出版中使用的初步建议。我们希望这里列出的建议和理由将有助于学术界更深入地理解AI在负责任的学术工作中的优势、局限性和挑战。