Recommendations on application of generative AI
1. AI use should be disclosed
In the 2023 update to the ICMJE guidelines, authors are required to disclose the use of AI in the cover letter, acknowledgements section, or methods section as appropriate. More specifically, any use of AI for writing, editing, or proofreading the paper should be described in the acknowledgements section, while any use of AI to collect and analyze data or to create figures should be reported in the methods section.
Essentially, while the ICMJE doesn’t ban the use of AI technologies, it requires complete and transparent reporting of how these technologies have been used in the study and related research manuscript.
2. AI is not an author
Any AI tool cannot fulfill one of the basic criteria of authorship according to the ICMJE: taking responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the paper’s contents. Therefore, no AI tool, such as ChatGPT, can be listed as an author, even if it has been extensively used in the study or paper. ICMJE also cautions that AI-generated output could be incorrect, incomplete, or biased, and warns authors to carefully review even the most authoritative AI content. It’s also necessary to check any AI-generated text or images for plagiarism.
On similar lines, AI tools cannot be listed in the reference list as sources, because AI is not considered an authoritative source of scientific information.
3. AI should be used cautiously for manuscript evaluation
The January 2024 update to the ICMJE guidelines mentions that “Editors should be aware that using AI technology in the processing of manuscripts may violate confidentiality.” It’s therefore essential that any peer reviewers who want to use AI tools to facilitate their review, obtain permission from the journal editor beforehand. Uploading an entire manuscript to an unauthorized platform or AI software could be considered a breach of confidentiality.
Moreover, just as authors have to be careful about the accuracy and objectivity of AI-generated text, peer reviewers too need to be aware that AI-generated peer review comments could be inaccurate, flawed, or biased.
Bottom line
So, no tool can be a substitute for your own knowledge, experience, and expertise.