Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42016269›Full record

ArticleResearch Evaluation2026

Generative AI can and should accelerate research evaluation reform to better recognize 'distinctly human contributions'.

Mohammad Hosseini, Brian D Earp, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Kristi Holmes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research Evaluation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohammad HosseiniDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2385-985X
Brian D EarpYale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY, 10524, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-2888
Sebastian Porsdam MannCenter for Advanced Studies in Bioscience Innovation Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2300, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1867-2097
Kristi HolmesDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8420-5254

Funding

NUCATS CTSA UM1 at Northwestern UniversityUM1TR005121 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Sara Becker, Richard D'Aquila · 2024 to 2026
$23.4M
Network of the National Library of Medicine Evaluation CenterU24LM013751 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI KRISTI HOLMES · 2021 to 2026
$4.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR005121NLM NIH HHS U24 LM013751
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) revolutionizes how research is conducted, it also challenges traditional methods of scholarly evaluation. Productivity metrics such as publication and citation counts are widely understood to be poor proxies for gauging meaningful impact. These metrics are becoming even less reliable as GenAI accelerates text-based and computational work while leaving other forms of research labor (e.g. community engagement, in-person mentorship and team development) largely unaffected. This uneven effect risks exacerbating existing evaluative biases. We argue that evaluation reforms should be organized around two categories of 'distinctly human contributions' that are indispensable to research, but which are inadequately captured by metrics: (1) the epistemic-ethical category, encompassing situated judgment under accountability (e.g. deciding what to trust, justifying that decision, and standing behind it); and (2) the socio-relational category, encompassing sustained forms of valuable human engagement (e.g. mentoring, teaching, community partnership and trust-building). We suggest practical mechanisms for supporting evaluation reform including modified CRediT (Contributor Role Taxonomy) statements, recognition of a broader array of outputs, and strengthened narrative CVs and third-person testimonies. However, we acknowledge that these suggestions, particularly those relying on narrative self-presentation, are themselves vulnerable to GenAI manipulation and are insufficient on their own. If distinctly human contributions to research require judgment and relationships that resist automation, then evaluation cannot be reduced to instruments designed to minimize human evaluative effort. GenAI, therefore, does not require entirely new systems of evaluation. Rather, it increases the cost of avoiding what good and ethically sound performance evaluation has always required.

Indexed as

ethicsGenerative artificial intelligenceresearch evaluationscholarly assessment

Identifiers

PMID42016269
PMCPMC13094469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.