Améliorer le discours académique à l'ère de l'intelligence artificielle: Une approche guidée pour une évaluation efficace par les pairs
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Résumé
L'intégrité du processus de révision par les pairs (PRP) revêt une importance capitale dans la publication académique et sert de filtre critique pour la production savante. Cette revue se concentre sur l'introduction de directives exhaustives, présentées sous forme de tableaux, visant à rationaliser les interactions entre les auteurs et les réviseurs lors du PRP.
Ces directives, issues d'une exploration approfondie du PRP, offrent des conseils structurés et pratiques pour garantir une communication constructive, transparente et efficace, notamment en ce qui concerne l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle. Bien que cette mini-revue aborde les forces et les défis du PRP actuel, son principal objectif est de fournir des recommandations tangibles pour améliorer la qualité et l'efficacité du PRP.
En fournissant des directives explicites et en mettant l'accent sur l'essence coopérative de la PRP, cette mini-revue vise à améliorer le PRP, en veillant à ce qu'il demeure un mécanisme solide pour maintenir les normes les plus élevées de recherche et de diffusion des connaissances dans un environnement académique en évolution.
Mots-clés :
Critères, Directives, Évaluation de manuscrits, Évaluation, Expertise des réviseurs, Intégrité académique, Normes de publication, Qualité de la recherche##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Références
- Peters MA, Jandrić P, Irwin R, Locke K, Devine N, Heraud R, et al. Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educ Philos Theory. 2016;48(14):1401-25.
- Ben Saad H. Scientific medical writing in practice: the IMR@D(R) format. Tunis Med. 2019;97(3):407-25.
- Ben Saad H. Scientific medical writing in practice: How to succeed the writing style? Tunis Med. 2019;97(2):273-85.
- ICJME. International committee of medical journal editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medicaljournals. Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. ; 2023. Available via this URL: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. (Last visit: october 7, 2023).
- Double KS, McGrane JA, Hopfenbeck TN. The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019;32(2):481-509.
- Ali MJ, Djalilian A. Readership awareness series - Paper 6: How to write a good peer review report? Semin Ophthalmol. 2023;38(8):687-9.
- Ali MJ, Djalilian A. Readership awareness series - Paper 5: The peer review process. Semin Ophthalmol. 2023;38(7):599-601.
- Ellwanger JH, Chies JAB. We need to talk about peer-review-Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;125:201-5.
- Neumann N. Imperfect but important: a fellow's perspective on journal peer review. J Med Toxicol. 2020;16(1):1-2.
- Schulz R, Barnett A, Bernard R, Brown NJL, Byrne JA, Eckmann P, et al. Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):203.
- Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to reviewers' comments on submitted articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(2):105-7.
- Clark PC, Spratling R, Aycock DM, Marcus J. The real secret to getting published: Responding to reviewers. J Pediatr Health Care. 2023;37(5):570-4.
- Min SK. Critical tips on how to respond to peer reviewers. Vasc Specialist Int. 2022;38:8.
- Dergaa I, Saad H. Joining hands for better health: The inception of the New Asian journal of medicine. N Asian J Med. 2023;1(1):1-3.
- Kearney L, Cummins A, O'Connell M, Sweet L. Mastering the art of responding to peer review. Women Birth. 2023.
- LaDonna KA, Cowley L, Ananny L, Regehr G, Eva KW. When feedback is not perceived as feedback: Challenges for regulatory-body mandated peer review. Acad Med. 2023.
- Meyer-Junco L, Waldfogel JM, Duncan N. Peer review questions & answers: How? J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2023;37(3):209-12.
- Brandao AA. Some remarks on peer review and preprints. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2023;118:e230001.
- Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Perez-Rios M, Rey-Brandariz J. The standard peer-review system needs to be reformulated towards a more efficient peer-review system. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2023;99(4):291-2.
- Remuzzi G. The ethics of peer review process. Updates Surg. 2023;75(6):1391-2.
- Beck S, Bergenholtz C, Bogers M, Brasseur T-M, Conradsen ML, Di Marco D, et al. The open innovation in science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach. Ind Innov. 2020;29(2):136-85.
- Khemiss M, Berrezouga L, Ben Khelifa M, Masmoudi T, Ben Saad H. Understanding of plagiarism among North-African university hospital doctors (UHDs): A pilot study. Account Res. 2019;26(2):65-84.
- Gorski A, Zimecki M, Krotkiewski H. Journal impact factor and self-citations. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2021;69(1):21.
- Dergaa I, Chamari K, Glenn JM, Ben Aissa M, Guelmami N, Ben Saad H. Towards responsible research: examining the need for preprint policy reassessment in the era of artificial intelligence. EXCLI J. 2023;22:686-9.
- Dergaa I, Chamari K, Zmijewski P, Ben Saad H. From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biol Sport. 2023;40(2):615-22.
- Balaji SM. Risks and benefits of artificial intelligence for peer-review. Indian J Dent Res. 2023;34(1):1.
- COPE. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Hampshire: COPE council; 2017. Available via this URL: https://publication-ethics.org/resources/guide lines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers. (Last visit: october 7, 2023).
- Vercellini P, Buggio L, Vigano P, Somigliana E. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;31:15-9.
- No authors’ listed. There's a time to be critical. Nature. 2011;473(7347):253.
- Irfanullah H. Ending human-dependent peer review. Available via this URL: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/09/29/ending-human-dependent-peer-review/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email (Last visit: October 21, 2023).
- Dziri C, Fingerhut A. Should we accept systematically the text provided by ChatGPT or Perplexity? Tunis Med. 2023; 101 (3): 321-2.
- Dergaa I, Ben Saad H. Artificial intelligence and promoting open access in academic publishing. Tunis Med. 2023; 101(6): 533-6.