Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Med Health Care Philos ; 26(4): 499-503, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37863860

RESUMEN

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.


Asunto(s)
Bioética , Edición , Humanos , Comunicación Académica , Inteligencia Artificial
6.
Hastings Cent Rep ; 53(5): 3-6, 2023 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37777997

RESUMEN

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.


Asunto(s)
Bioética , Edición , Humanos , Políticas Editoriales , Comunicación Académica , Inteligencia Artificial
7.
Ethics Hum Res ; 45(5): 39-43, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37777979

RESUMEN

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.


Asunto(s)
Políticas Editoriales , Edición , Humanos , Comunicación Académica , Inteligencia Artificial , Tecnología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA