Abstract
This letter highlights a pressing issue regarding the absence of established editorial policies for the utilization of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in the peer review process. The increasing adoption of AI tools in academic publishing necessitates the formulation of standardized guidelines to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Without clear editorial policies, there is a threat of compromising the integrity of the peer review process and undermining the credibility of academic publications. Urgent attention is needed to address this gap and establish robust protocols that govern the use of AI tools in peer review.
References
Hosseini, M., and S. P. J. M. Horbach. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Res. Integrity Peer Rev. 8(1):1–8, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5.
Tang, G. Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers. Acc. Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2180359.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. ChatGPT: detection in academic journals is editors’ and publishers’ responsibilities. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03247-5.
Funding
The author received no specific funding for this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Manuel B. Garcia conceived and wrote the entire article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval is not applicable for this article.
Additional information
Associate Editor Stefan M. Duma oversaw the review of this article.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garcia, M.B. Using AI Tools in Writing Peer Review Reports: Should Academic Journals Embrace the Use of ChatGPT?. Ann Biomed Eng 52, 139–140 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03299-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03299-7