Skip to content
Review Open access

Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows

Aug 2026 · Research Integrity and Peer Review · Vol 11 · 0 citations · 51 references
Medicine

TL;DR

A conceptual and practical framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly workflows that distinguishes disclosure from documentation and proposes documentation fields for minimal and extended AI use is developed.

Abstract

Generative AI is increasingly used in scholarly research, writing, and publication workflows. Many journal and publisher policies ask authors to disclose relevant AI use, but disclosure alone rarely clarifies how AI-assisted work was performed, what information was entered, how outputs were evaluated, or how human responsibility was maintained. This creates a gap between AI-use disclosure as a publication requirement and AI-use documentation as an open science practice. This article develops a conceptual and practical framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly workflows. The framework was informed by exploratory, non-systematic source and policy mapping, AI-assisted exploratory evidence mapping, manual review of selected recent literature, and development of accompanying Open Science Framework materials. These steps were used to identify recurring documentation expectations and unresolved policy gaps and to translate them into practical documentation domains, with particular attention to task specificity, proportionality, role-specific documentation, privacy-sensitive transparency, and clinically sensitive contexts. The framework distinguishes disclosure from documentation and proposes documentation fields for minimal and extended AI use. Minimal documentation is intended for low-risk uses such as limited language polishing, whereas extended documentation is recommended when AI supports literature synthesis, coding, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, peer-review-related work, clinical material, or research procedures. The framework is accompanied by reusable OSF materials, including documentation templates, prompt-log structures, declaration examples, checklists, clinical redaction guidance, and source-tracking materials. AI-use disclosure communicates that AI was used; documentation makes the AI-assisted workflow traceable, inspectable, and accountable. A task-specific, proportionate, role-specific, and privacy-sensitive documentation approach can support responsible AI use while protecting confidential, patient-related, peer-review-related, and methodologically sensitive information. The accompanying bilingual materials are openly available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A439J.

Read PDF

Similar papers

#generative ai Review Aug 2026

Expectations and Practices around AI Disclosure in CS Research

A categorization of research tasks by perceived necessity and a boilerplate template capturing expected details is suggested, suggesting a categorization of research tasks by perceived necessity and a boilerplate template capturing expected details.

Arati Mohapatra, Danish Pruthi · 0 citations
Aug 2026

When AI use becomes the norm: Researcher perspectives on AI disclosure policy and practice.

The study provides empirical evidence supporting the development of a structured AI contribution taxonomy as a more principled and practical alternative to existing disclosure practices and suggests that effective AI disclosure governance should incorporate field-sensitive adaptation rather than relying on uniform impl...

Ayoung Yoon, Siena Oristaglio · 0 citations
Review Open access Oct 2026

AI-assisted peer review: efficiency for reviewers, burden for authors—a narrative review

Artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly peer review has the potential to simplify the work of editors and reviewers through faster triage, automated reporting completeness checks, and scalable synthesis of reviewer comments. However, it also presents practical, ethical, and technical limitations that may place implem...

A. Babker · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

AI-ASSISTED REWRITING AND IDEA LAUNDERING IN ACADEMIA: A PROOF-OF-CONCEPT STUDY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PUBLICATION CONTROLS

This study examines the extent to which the similarity reports and AI writing reports used in academic publishing can provide assurance against the risk of “idea laundering” that may be carried out through AI-assisted rewriting. Its central claim is that AI-assisted writing does not, in itself, constitute plagiarism; t...

Yusuf Mert Velioğlu, Hakan Velioğlu, Selçuk Olum et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

AI-Assisted Academic Writing: Ethics and Regulation in Scholarly Publishing

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming academic writing and scholarly publishing, offering new efficiencies while raising significant ethical and regulatory challenges. This study critically examines AI’s dual role as both a productivity catalyst and a source of risks to originality, fairness, and credibility. Tw...

Michael Ndonye · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.