Generative AI in Academic Publishing

Abstract

The authors present a qualitative comparative analysis of AI policies from five major academic publishers: Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Sage, Wiley, and Springer Nature. They employed position statements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as their analytical framework. Six key themes emerged: permitted AI use, prohibited AI use, disclosure requirements, AI as author and co-author, AI in peer review, and policy adaptability. They found substantial differences among publishers in defining acceptable AI use and disclosure requirements. While all publishers explicitly state that AI cannot claim authorship, their policies differ in permitted AI roles, particularly regarding peer review and manuscript preparation. These inconsistencies create ethical challenges for authors and reviewers. The study concludes by recommending clearer, discipline-specific guidelines and enhanced reviewer training to ensure responsible AI use for upholding scholarly integrity.

Ähnliche Arbeiten