Dec 4, 2024 | Polls & Perspectives

To Use AI or To Not Use AI…for Manuscript Development?

You are a researcher working on a groundbreaking clinical study that could potentially lead to a significant advancement in the treatment of a complex disease. Some members of the research team want to use artificial intelligence (AI) to develop the first draft of the manuscript. Other team members are concerned about accuracy, interpretation, and potential bias in the content. What Would You Do?

If your target journal allows AI-generated content, embrace AI to generate the first draft of the manuscript. Your rationale is that AI can process vast amounts of data efficiently and may uncover patterns and insights that humans might overlook. You reassure your team members that you will implement careful oversight and review, so that any inaccuracies or biases can be corrected during the review and revision process.

Reject AI and rely solely on the expertise of the human researchers to draft the manuscript. You argue that AI can assist in data analysis, but a nuanced understanding of the research findings, context, and implications requires human insight. You prioritize the human touch and interpretative skills in crafting the manuscript.

Use AI to assist in generating the first draft (for example, developing the Methods and Results sections), but leverage the strengths of human writers to develop the contextual sections (Introduction and Discussion) and to oversee and validate the AI-generated content, ensuring accuracy and addressing potential biases. Ensure that the role of AI in the draft development is recorded and appropriately acknowledged.

Based on concerns that AI may include potential biases ingrained in the algorithms and risk of misinterpretation of complex medical data, wait until a thorough review of AI-generated content has been conducted to identify these biases before using AI to generate your manuscript. It may be that AI is not appropriate for this manuscript but could be used in the future.