Year: 2024
Type: article
Abstract: At the ISTR conference this summer, I was asked if NML has a policy on the use of generative AI or tools using large language models (such as ChatGPT) for authors of manuscripts submitted to the journal.This question was a good one, and timely.While I have only suspected one or two manuscripts submitted to the journal in the last three years of being written by an AI tool (which were desk rejected for quality reasons regardless of whether they were AI-written), I suspect that far more authors today are using ChatGPT or other AI tools to edit or compose at least parts of their manuscripts.Coincidentally, I also have noticed similar wordingat times the exact same sets of sentencesused in different cover letters accompanying submitted manuscripts over the last few months.Again, I suspect the use of ChatGPT or other tools to prepare authors' materials in some of these cases.From my perspective as editor, the question becomes whether the use of ChatGPT or other AI Tools crosses an academic dishonesty threshold.For cases involving the preparation of communications about a manuscript, I cannot think of a reason to disqualify a manuscript based on the suspected use of AI in writing a cover letter, or potentially even in a response to reviewers.However, I also do not see the benefit for the authors who choose to do so.If text in the cover letter, or in the response to a reviewer, however insignificant, makes me suspect the use of AI, then I also would likely suspect the use of AI or other forms of deceit elsewhere by the authors.It may be an outdated perspective on my part, but when I read a communication from someone, I expect that person to have written it.If similar text or other cues make me question the authenticity of authorship, my trust in that person would be challenged, even if it was just in a cover letter.Beyond the risks of using and not disclosing the use of generative artificial intelligence tools on trust, there are, of course, evolving standards in publishing on what qualifies as breaches of academic honesty.As a Wiley journal, NML's current policy is to adopt and refer to Wiley's policies on the subject, which can be found in Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics.These guidelines can be found in Wiley's author services website at https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html, in the "Artificial Intelligence" section.Because the main purpose of this note is to clarify the journal's policies on this topic, I include the full section from those guidelines below.However, because the guidelines (last updated April 11, 2024) could change, I encourage you to always refer to the most recent policies on the Wiley website.Again, for clarity now, these are the current Wiley guidelines on the use of Artificial Intelligence, which NML authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to follow: Generative Artificial Intelligence tools (GenAI)-such as ChatGPT and others based on large language models (LLMs)-can increase productivity and foster innovation if used appropriately in a safe, ethical and secure manner.STM has general guidance (https:// www.stm-assoc.org/new-white-paper-launch-generative-ai-in-scholarly-communications/ ) for all stakeholders in scholarly publishing which addresses the role of generative AI technologies.If an author has used a GenAI tool to develop any portion of a manuscript, its use must be described, transparently and in detail, in the Methods section (or via a
DOI: 10.1002/nml.21635
Language: English
Subfield: Safety Research
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W4402274951