ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2026
A systematic map of generative AI guidelines and reporting in ecology and evolutionary biology: towards the framework of AI disclosure for Improved Transparency (AIdIT).
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming embedded across scientific workflows, yet mechanisms for transparently documenting its use remain fragmented and weakly enforced. Focusing on ecology and evolutionary biology as a model discipline, we systematically mapped AI-related journal policies across 230 journals and assessed article-level compliance using a large sample of recent publications. To provide a reporting background, we also synthesised author contribution guidelines. Nearly half of journals provided no guidance on AI use, and where policies existed, they were largely generic, publisher-driven, and poorly translated into reporting practice. While author contribution statements were widely adopted, explicit AI disclosures appeared in fewer than 6% of papers, even in journals with formal AI policies. Text-mining of 124 guideline documents revealed highly standardised, precautionary language emphasising responsibility and prohibitions, with minimal operational guidance on acceptable uses or disclosure formats. To address this gap, we introduce AIdIT (AI disclosure for Improved Transparency), a standardised, taxonomy-based framework for reporting AI use across all stages of the research lifecycle. AIdIT integrates structured categories of AI use, human oversight statements, and machine-readable outputs to support reproducibility, accountability, and comparability. Together, our systematic evidence synthesis and proposed framework highlight an urgent need to normalise AI transparency as a core component of open research practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.