Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Scientific Publishing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guzik Tomasz J, Aboyans Victor, Agewall Stefan, Bailey Steven, Baranchuk Adrian, Bäck Magnus, Böhm Michael, Bonow Robert O, Booz George W, Boriani Giuseppe, Bozkurt Biykem, Bruining Nico, Capodanno Davide, Erol Çetin, Ferdinandy Péter, Gimelli Alessia, Heusch Gerd, Kahan Thomas, Lang Chim Choy, Maurer Gerald, Mentz Robert J, Metra Marco, Moons Philip, Piskorz Daniel, Piepoli Massimo, Ponikowski Piotr, Popma Alexandra, Rocca Bianca, Fores Juan Sanchis, Sommer Philipp, Touyz Rhian M, Ungvari Zoltan, Vranckx Pascal, Hill Joseph A, Lüscher Thomas F, Crea Filippo
Аннотация
Artificial intelligence is now embedded across the scientific research and publishing ecosystem, influencing discovery, analysis, knowledge translation, authorship, peer review, and editorial workflows. In cardiovascular and biomedical sciences, these developments offer substantial opportunities to accelerate knowledge generation, integrate complex datasets, and improve efficiency and consistency. At the same time, they introduce new risks related to bias, transparency, data integrity, and authorship responsibility, potentially endangering trust in the scientific record. This commentary examines the evolving role of AI in biomedical publishing, with particular attention to generative models and machine learning tools. We review both benefits and limitations, highlight risks such as fabricated content, biased outputs, and erosion of accountability, and discuss why traditional detection approaches are insufficient. Instead, we argue for a shift toward transparency, provenance, and enforceable human responsibility as the core principles guiding AI use, ensuring that AI strengthens rather than undermines scientific rigour and public trust. We outline practical expectations for authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers, with emphasis on reporting standards, reproducibility under rapidly evolving model versions, and the conflict-of-interest implications of AI tooling for the editorial process itself.