Fettiplace Michael R, Bhatia Anuj, Chen Yian, Orebaugh Steven L, Gofeld Michael, Gabriel Rodney A, Sessler Daniel I, Lonsdale Hannah, Bungart Brittani, Cheng Christopher P, Burnett Garrett W, Han Lichy, Wiles Matthew, Coppens Steve, Joseph Thomas, Schreiber Kristin L, Volk Thomas, Urman Richard D, Kovacheva Vesela P, Wu Christopher L, Mariano Edward R, Ip Vivian H Y
Anesthesiology, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2025 Sep 2. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2025-106852.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scientific process is advancing at a remarkable speed, thanks to continued innovations in large language models. While AI provides widespread benefits, including editing for fluency and clarity, it also has drawbacks, including fabricated content, perpetuation of bias, and lack of accountability. The editorial board of (RAPM) therefore sought to develop best practices for AI usage and disclosure.
A steering committee from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine used a modified Delphi process to address definitions, disclosure requirements, authorship standards, and editorial oversight for AI use in publishing. The committee reviewed existing publication guidelines and identified areas of ambiguity, which were translated into questions and distributed to an expert workgroup of authors, reviewers, editors, and AI researchers.
Two survey rounds, with 91% and 87% response rates, were followed by focused discussion and clarification to identify consensus recommendations. The workgroup achieved consensus on recommendations to authors about definitions of AI, required items to report, disclosure locations, authorship stipulations, and AI use during manuscript preparation. The workgroup formulated recommendations to reviewers about monitoring and evaluating the responsible use of AI in the review process, including the endorsement of AI-detection software, identification of concerns about undisclosed AI use, situations where AI use may necessitate the rejection of a manuscript, and use of checklists in the review process. Finally, there was consensus about AI-driven work, including required and optional disclosures and the use of checklists for AI-associated research.
Our modified Delphi study identified practical recommendations on AI use during the scientific writing and editorial process. The workgroup highlighted the need for transparency, human accountability, protection of patient confidentiality, editorial oversight, and the need for iterative updates. The proposed framework enables authors and editors to harness AI's efficiencies while maintaining the fundamental principles of responsible scientific communication and may serve as an example for other journals.
由于大语言模型的持续创新，人工智能（AI）在科学过程中的应用正以惊人的速度发展。虽然人工智能带来了广泛的好处，包括编辑语言的流畅性和清晰度，但它也有缺点，包括虚假内容、偏见的延续以及缺乏问责制。因此，《区域麻醉与疼痛医学杂志》（RAPM）的编辑委员会试图制定人工智能使用和披露的最佳实践。
美国区域麻醉与疼痛医学学会的一个指导委员会采用了改进的德尔菲法，以解决人工智能在出版中的定义、披露要求、作者身份标准和编辑监督问题。该委员会审查了现有的出版指南，确定了模糊领域，并将其转化为问题，分发给作者、审稿人、编辑和人工智能研究人员组成的专家工作组。
进行了两轮调查，回复率分别为91%和87%，随后进行了集中讨论和澄清，以确定共识性建议。工作组就向作者提出的关于人工智能定义、报告所需项目、披露位置、作者身份规定以及稿件准备过程中人工智能使用的建议达成了共识。工作组向审稿人提出了关于在审稿过程中监测和评估人工智能负责任使用的建议，包括认可人工智能检测软件、识别对未披露人工智能使用的担忧、人工智能使用可能导致稿件被拒的情况以及在审稿过程中使用清单。最后，就人工智能驱动的工作达成了共识，包括所需和可选的披露以及与人工智能相关研究使用清单。
我们改进的德尔菲研究确定了在科学写作和编辑过程中使用人工智能的实用建议。工作组强调了透明度、人为问责制、保护患者保密性、编辑监督以及迭代更新的必要性。提议的框架使作者和编辑能够利用人工智能的效率，同时维护负责任的科学交流的基本原则，并可能为其他期刊树立榜样。
