Current AI disclosure guidelines are failing and driving AI use underground rather than making it transparent. In this follow-up post, I turn to the more challenging question: what publishers should do about it.
Only a negligible percentage of authors seem to actually be disclosing their AI use. Here’s why I think that’s the case.
Today’s guest author raises the question of whether a researcher submitting an article that was significantly drafted by an LLM without clear disclosure is effectively engaging in a contemporary form of ghost authorship.
In today’s guest post, Wendy Queen (JHUP) continues her conversation with Trevor Owens (AIP) about how the tools and sensibilities of the humanities are helping to preserve the record of the physical sciences.
Today, we speak with Prof. Yana Suchikova about GAIDeT, the Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy, which enables researchers to disclose the use of generative AI in an honest and transparent way.
This post explores author, reviewer, and publisher ethics and responsibilities related to the use of AI in coding and publishing research software.
If you use a chatbot in writing a text, and are discouraged from listing it as a coauthor, should you attribute the relevant passages to the tool via citation instead? Is it appropriate to cite chatbots as information sources?
Part two of a look back at the Publisherspeak meeting — today’s themes: metadata infrastructure and diversity in authorship and editorial processes.
Should the authors’ institution make decisions regarding authorship disputes on a paper?
Avi Staiman discusses the value that ChatGPT can bring to scholarly communication, particularly leveling the playing field for English as an Additional Language authors.
We round out Peer Review Week with a guest post by Erin Landis, Meghan McDevitt, and Jason Roberts of Origin Editorial reporting on the 2022 Peer Review Congress.
In a new twist on academic fraud, a company now offers to pay you to write and publish book reviews that will be credited to someone else.
Preprints play a crucial role in open science but offer an opportunity to be gamed. Fictitious authorship in preprints show that open science needs checks and we need to collaborate to govern Open Science.
Scientific authorship comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. If authors are unwilling to explain their work, editors must step up to defend their journal.
Eric Broug takes a look at the siloed nature of publishing organizations, and how disconnects between different aspects of the business can be harmful.