All 3 entries tagged Authorship

No other Warwick Blogs use the tag Authorship on entries | View entries tagged Authorship at Technorati | There are no images tagged Authorship on this blog

March 01, 2023

New AI & Authorship Policy Introduced

Follow-up to AI & Authorship from Exchanges Reflections: Interdisciplinary Editor Insights

A new policy of interest to authors using AI tools to support their research or writing has been introduced.

As discussed last month, the Exchanges Editorial Board have been considering the introduction of a new policy relating to authors and their use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. As of the end of February, this new policy has been introduced and is line with best practice ethical guidance, and current publishing practices.

Briefly speaking, AI tools cannot be cited as authors within any Exchangespapers and authors are solely responsible for any and all contents of their manuscripts. Additionally, where AI tools are used to prepare any portion of the manuscript, the usage of these tools needs to cited, explained and transparent. In this way, authors are not denied the usage of AI tools within their work, but need to demonstrably show how such tools have contributed to their research, writing and related endeavours.

For more information see:

Announcement: New AI Policy Introduced

Journal Policies: Authorship & AI Tools Policy

Or of course, contact the journal to discuss this further.

February 14, 2023

AI & Authorship

Writing about web page

Like many of you I've been following the discussions around authorship and AI, especially as it relates to ChatGPT and scholarly communications in recent weeks (for example: Haggart, 2023; Lucey & Dowling, 2023). You probably saw the splash in the news recently too when the major research journal Science took the position ‘banning the use of text from ChatGPT and clarifying that the program could not be listed as an author.’ (Sample, 2023). Naturally, as a journal editor thoughts on originality are rarely far from my mind, and while there have been tools around for some time which can be deployed by authors in the creation of text – I can recall playing with them as far back as two decades ago – ChatGPT does rather seem to have shifted the practice from a niche to a mainstream activity.

Given Exchanges regularly looks to COPE (the Committee in Publishing Ethics) for best practice guidance in maters of publishing ethics, I’ve been keeping our powder dry as far as any related policy for the journal is concerned. Certainly, during the last few weeks we’ve received our first – and I doubt last – article submission relating to the issue. Note about not by, being the important elements in this respect. Nevertheless, I suspect in the fullness of time we may will almost certainly have contributions from authors who will be making use of AI tools in the creations of their papers.

Hence, this morning I noted with particular interest how COPE have now produced a position statement on the issue of authorship and the use of AI in the creation of research publications. I confess I’ve been waiting on this with anticipation, and now it’s here am glad to report it is fairly elegant in its simplicity. The key elements of COPE’s position being:

  • AI Tools cannot be listed as paper authors given they cannot take any legal responsibility.
  • Authors utilising AI tools in a manuscript’s creation must disclose where/how they were used.
  • Authors retain responsibility and ethical liability for all of their paper’s contents

(COPE, 2023)

To my thinking this seems a rational, fair and workable approach. It doesn’t entirely exclude contributions from authors who may well wish to make a use of AI tools in the creation of their research outputs – which is good, because I wouldn’t want to preclude these from our considerations. However, it does clarify and demarcate the expectations of professional ethics, original contributions and the boundaries of authorship within any journal contributions. While I suspect questions around the use and misuse of AI tools within scholarship will not be evaporating any time soon, to my mind this position statement at least provides editors like myself with a framework upon which to consider and build our own related submission policies.

As such, with the hopeful agreement of Exchanges’ Editorial Board, we will be adapting and adopting a policy on AI tools and authorship, very much based on the COPE guidance. Given we as a journal typically look towards COPE for best ethical practice, this is line with the development of our extant policy frameworks. Authors seeking to explore these topics more, and how it may impact on the production of their submissions, naturally, are encouraged to contact myself for further discussions.



COPE, 2023. Authorship and AI Tools: COPE Position Statement. Committee on Publication Ethics.

Haggart, B., 2023. ChatGPT Strikes at the Heart of the Scientific World View. Centre for International Governance Innovation. 23 January 2023.

Lucey, B., & Dowling, M., 2023. ChatGPT: our study shows AI can produce academic papers good enough for journals – just as some ban it. The Conversation, 26 January.

Sample, I., 2023. Science journals ban listing of ChatGPT as co-author on papers. The Guardian, 26 Jan 2023.

November 10, 2022

Early–Stage Researchers – Special Issue Invitation Launched

Writing about web page

A new special issue project is launched, tying into a researcher developmental course.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending Warwick’s Leadership and Management Development Course on reflective practice for early-stage researchers. The course, which is being run three times this year aims to generate some discussion and exchange of experience between researchers who are early in their career and are looking to broaden their understanding of the wider research landscape. Yesterday’s session was focussed in on writing and publication, which was why I was there: to offer insights into the art of peer-reviewing and editing journals.

While only a relatively small cohort of delegates, there were some excellent and perceptive questions and insights shared, and I think considerable interest in what I had to say! The course will be running with two further researcher cohorts this academic year, and I’ll be popping up in each of these as well. It certainly is nice to interact with some scholars I’ve not met before, and who for once, aren’t directly linked to the IAS. I am also looking forward to learning more about new researchers’ perceptions of academic authorship and scholarly publications too.

Synergistically we’ve also partnered with the LMD [1] to launch a special issue call tied to this course. In it, delegates are being invited to submit critical reflections around their research practice inspired by or promoted by the course contents themselves. Naturally, we hope a few of the course participants might also get involved as associate editors for the issue too, so we’ll see how that develops over time. I suspect there will be some very interesting papers submitted to the issue on the basis of what I heard yesterday.

Special Issue - Early-Stage Researcher Reflections: [Anticipated Publication - 2023]
This special issue is devoted to participants within the three cohorts of the Warwick Leadership and Management Development course for developing early-stage researchers. Course delegates are being invited to submit critical reflections concerning their own research practice. These are expected to be inspired by their experiences, insights or considerations arising from the course contents and discussions with their peers. Manuscripts may opt to provide a holistic overview of the researchers’ experiences or choose to focus in on particular aspects of their life and work.

Find out more about all our past, present and future (!) special issues here:

My thanks to Dr Harriet Richmond of the LMD for the invitation to get involved in this course, and for proposing the special issue too!


[1] Which I now realise is also the same acronym as Life Model Decoy in the MCU

February 2024

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  |
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29         

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • Follow up: Well, that could have been a lot worse – only 11.7% of accounts are 'deceased' or in need… by Gareth Johnson on this entry

Blog archive

RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder