Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Gregory E. Kaebnick; David Christopher Magnus; Audiey Kao; Mohammad Hosseini; David Resnik; Veljko Dubljević; Christy Rentmeester; Bert Gordijn; Mark J. Cherry

doi:10.1002/hast.1507

Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Gregory E. Kaebnick, David Christopher Magnus, Audiey Kao, Mohammad Hosseini, David Resnik, Veljko Dubljević, Christy Rentmeester, Bert Gordijn, Mark J. Cherry

Preventive Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	3-6
Number of pages	4
Journal	Hastings Center Report
Volume	53
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1507
State	Published - Sep 1 2023

Funding

David Resnik's contribution to this editorial was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Mohammad Hosseini's contribution was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (through grant UL1TR001422). The funders have not played a role in the design, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Veljko Dubljević's contribution was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award (#2043612). The funders have not played a role in the design, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This work does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NCATS, NIH, NSF, or U.S. government.

Keywords

accountability
bioethics
ChatGPT
community of scholars
generative AI
humanities
journal publishing
large language models
transparency

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Health(social science)
Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Philosophy
Health Policy

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1002/hast.1507

Cite this

@article{9bd23b2e76aa4a03922f2fe3261e2633,

title = "Editors{\textquoteright} Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "accountability, bioethics, ChatGPT, community of scholars, generative AI, humanities, journal publishing, large language models, transparency",

author = "Kaebnick, {Gregory E.} and Magnus, {David Christopher} and Audiey Kao and Mohammad Hosseini and David Resnik and Veljko Dubljevi{\'c} and Christy Rentmeester and Bert Gordijn and Cherry, {Mark J.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Hastings Center.",

year = "2023",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1002/hast.1507",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "53",

pages = "3--6",

journal = "Hastings Center Report",

issn = "0093-0334",

publisher = "Hastings Center",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

AU - Kaebnick, Gregory E.

AU - Magnus, David Christopher

AU - Kao, Audiey

AU - Hosseini, Mohammad

AU - Resnik, David

AU - Dubljević, Veljko

AU - Rentmeester, Christy

AU - Gordijn, Bert

AU - Cherry, Mark J.

PY - 2023/9/1

Y1 - 2023/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - accountability

KW - bioethics

KW - ChatGPT

KW - community of scholars

KW - generative AI

KW - humanities

KW - journal publishing

KW - large language models

KW - transparency

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85173535073&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85173535073&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hast.1507

DO - 10.1002/hast.1507

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 37777997

AN - SCOPUS:85173535073

SN - 0093-0334

VL - 53

SP - 3

EP - 6

JO - Hastings Center Report

JF - Hastings Center Report

IS - 5

ER -

Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this