Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2025 Sep 02. pii: rapm-2025-106852. [Epub ahead of print]
Michael R Fettiplace,
Anuj Bhatia,
Yian Chen,
Steven L Orebaugh,
Michael Gofeld,
Rodney A Gabriel,
Daniel I Sessler,
Hannah Lonsdale,
Brittani Bungart,
Christopher P Cheng,
Garrett W Burnett,
Lichy Han,
Matthew Wiles,
Steve Coppens,
Thomas Joseph,
Kristin L Schreiber,
Thomas Volk,
Richard D Urman,
Vesela P Kovacheva,
Christopher L Wu,
Edward R Mariano,
Vivian H Y Ip.
INTRODUCTION: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scientific process is advancing at a remarkable speed, thanks to continued innovations in large language models. While AI provides widespread benefits, including editing for fluency and clarity, it also has drawbacks, including fabricated content, perpetuation of bias, and lack of accountability. The editorial board of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) therefore sought to develop best practices for AI usage and disclosure.
METHODS: A steering committee from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine used a modified Delphi process to address definitions, disclosure requirements, authorship standards, and editorial oversight for AI use in publishing. The committee reviewed existing publication guidelines and identified areas of ambiguity, which were translated into questions and distributed to an expert workgroup of authors, reviewers, editors, and AI researchers.
RESULTS: Two survey rounds, with 91% and 87% response rates, were followed by focused discussion and clarification to identify consensus recommendations. The workgroup achieved consensus on recommendations to authors about definitions of AI, required items to report, disclosure locations, authorship stipulations, and AI use during manuscript preparation. The workgroup formulated recommendations to reviewers about monitoring and evaluating the responsible use of AI in the review process, including the endorsement of AI-detection software, identification of concerns about undisclosed AI use, situations where AI use may necessitate the rejection of a manuscript, and use of checklists in the review process. Finally, there was consensus about AI-driven work, including required and optional disclosures and the use of checklists for AI-associated research.
DISCUSSION: Our modified Delphi study identified practical recommendations on AI use during the scientific writing and editorial process. The workgroup highlighted the need for transparency, human accountability, protection of patient confidentiality, editorial oversight, and the need for iterative updates. The proposed framework enables authors and editors to harness AI's efficiencies while maintaining the fundamental principles of responsible scientific communication and may serve as an example for other journals.
Keywords: EDUCATION; Methods; TECHNOLOGY