ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows.
Article 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsAI-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 .
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.