Recommendations on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Scholarly Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/izvor.2026.7Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLMs), Scientific Communication, Transparency, Responsible UseAbstract
The recent development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative AI (GenAI) presents new challenges and opportunities in scholarly communication. This has resulted in diverse policies of journals, publishers, and funders around the use of AI tools. Research studies, including surveys, suggest that researchers are already using AIs at a significant scale to create or edit manuscripts and peer review reports. Yet AI accuracy, effectiveness, and reproducibility remain uncertain. This toolkit aims to promote responsible and transparent use of AI by editors, authors, and reviewers, with links to examples of current policies and practices. As AIs are fast evolving, we will monitor and update these recommendations as new information becomes t us and share any opinions, policies, and examples that could help us improve this guide.
Downloads
References
1. European Commission. Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research developed by the European Research Area Forum. Brussels: European Commission; 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/
2. Mahrous MA, Chadha C, Robins PL, Bonney C, Boateng KA, Meyers M, Jasiuk I. Multimodule imaging of the hierarchical equine hoof wall porosity and structure. journal of materials research and technology. 2023 Sep 1;26:5535-48.
3. Willinsky J, Pimentel D. The publication facts label: A public and professional guide for research articles. Learned Publishing. 2024 Apr 1;37(2):139.
4. Zielinski C, Winker M, Aggarwal R, Ferris L, Heinemann M, Lapeña, Jr JF, Pai SA, Ing E, Citrome L, Alam M, Voight M, Habibzadeh F. Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts: WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2023 Jul. 25 [cited 2026 Sep. 1];11(A):263-5. Available from: https://oamjms.eu/index.php/mjms/article/view/11723
5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Updated ICMJE recommendations (January 2024). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2024.
6. STM. Generative AI in scholarly communications: ethical and practical guidelines for the use of generative AI in the publication process. STM; 2023. Available from: https://www.stm-assoc.org/
7. Giray L. ChatGPT references unveiled: distinguishing the reliable from the fake. Internet Ref Serv Q. 2024;28(1):9-18. doi:10.1080/10875301.2023.2265369.
8. Shahriar S, Hayawi K. Let's have a chat! A conversation with ChatGPT: technology, applications, and limitations. arXiv. 2023. arXiv:2302.13817.
9. Mahrous MA, Chadha C, Robins PL, Bonney C, Boateng KA, Meyers M, et al. Multimodule imaging of the hierarchical equine hoof wall porosity and structure. J Mater Res Technol. 2023;26:5535-5548.
10. Naddaf M. ChatGPT generates fake data set to support scientific hypothesis. Nature. 2023 Nov 22. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03635-w.
11. Why Nature will not allow the use of generative AI in images and video. Nature. 2023 Jun 7. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01546-4.
12. Antunes Nogueira L, Rein JO. Guest post—chatbots: to cite or not to cite? (Part I) [Internet]. The Scholarly Kitchen. 2024 Jun 19 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/06/19/chatbots-to-cite-or-not-to-cite-part-1/
13. Lo Vecchio N. Generative AI and peer review: summary [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.nicospage.eu/publications/ai-peer-revie
14. COPE Council. COPE discussion document: artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making [Internet]. Committee on Publication Ethics; 2021 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/doi/10.24318/9kvAgrnJsvg
15. National Institutes of Health. The use of generative artificial intelligence technologies is prohibited for the NIH peer review process [Internet]. Notice No. NOT-OD-23-149. 2023.
16. Elsevier. Generative AI policies for journals [Internet]. Amsterdam: Elsevier; [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
17. Hosseini M, Horbach SPJM. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023;8:4. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5.
18. Springer Nature. Editorial policies [Internet]. London: Springer Nature; 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/editorial-policies
19. Taylor & Francis. AI policy [Internet]. Abingdon (UK): Taylor & Francis; 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://taylorandfrancis.com/our-policies/ai-policy/
20. Wiley. Best practice guidelines on research integrity and publishing ethics [Internet]. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html
21. PLOS. Ethical publishing practice [Internet]. San Francisco (CA): Public Library of Science; 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://plos.org/resource/ethical-publishing-practice/
22. European Association of Science Editors (EASE). EASE recommendations on the use of AI in scholarly communication [Internet]. EASE; [cited 2026 Sep 1]. Available from: https://ease.org.uk/communities/peer-review-committee/peer-review-toolkit/recommendations-on-the-use-of-ai-in-scholarly-communication/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Катерина Спироска (Translator)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
