A vulnerable space: Health professions education scholars' reflections on AI-use disclosure
Lingard, L. A.; Maggio, L. A.; Ans, M.; Driessen, E.
Show abstract
Background AI use is growing by HPE scholars, and disclosure of that use is required by scientific ethics and journal policy. In spite of growing unease about the meaning, and meaningfulness, of AI-use disclosures in published manuscripts, little is known about how authors represent their AI use in published disclosure statements. Without such understanding, we are ill-equipped to redirect disclosure practices for increased sufficiency and sincerity, undermining efforts towards transparency in the era of AI-supported scholarship Methods In this descriptive qualitative study, 18 HPE researchers with experience disclosing generative AI use in publications from 2025-2026 were interviewed using Zoom. Data collection and thematic analysis proceeded iteratively, exploring participant experiences with AI use, their disclosure decisions, and evolving disclosure practices. Results Participants reported a wide range of experience writing AI-use disclosures (from 1-16 disclosures/participant); in total 31 published disclosures were shared by participants and discussed during the interviews. Our analysis identified four themes: A spectrum of AI uses; Multi-factorial disclosure decisions; Discrepancies between actual and disclosed use; and Emotions around disclosure. Discussion AI-disclosure takes place at the intersection of shared ethical principles and situated pragmatic concerns. Disclosure is both an intellectual and an emotional practice, changing over time as AI use evolves and journal expectations develop. More generative uses may provoke divisive responses and are related to uncertainty about how to disclose, concern about disclosure penalties, and periodic use-disclosure discrepancies. Understanding how researchers are navigating these complexities may help the HPE community articulate clearer guidance for transparent and meaningful disclosure of AI-use in scholarly work. Reflective methodologies can help bring these issues to the surface of ongoing conversations about AI use.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints 94%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 94%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals 93%
- Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review 92%
- Evidence of Unreliable Data and Poor Data Provenance in Clinical Prediction Model Research and Clinical Practice 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 92%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 91%
- Adverse event reviews in healthcare: What matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Emotional Distress, Stress, Anxiety and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Career Women in Healthcare Sciences Research 91%
- A Survey of Individuals’ Willingness to Share Real-World Data Post-Mortem with Researchers 90%
- Data-driven hypothesis generation among junior clinical researchers: A comparison of a secondary data analysis with visualization (VIADS) and other tools 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.