|
| 中文学术期刊AIGC治理政策的覆盖率与内容特征：基于卓越行动计划（二期）入选期刊的分析 |
| Coverage and content characteristics of generative AI governance policies in Chinese academic journals: an analysis based on journals selected for the second phase of the “Excellence Action Plan for China’s STM journals” |
| 投稿时间：2026-05-11 修订日期：2026-09-10 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: AIGC 中文学术期刊 同行评议 防泄密治理 政策成熟度 规范一致性 |
| 英文关键词: generative artificial intelligence Chinese academic journals peer review leakage-prevention governance policy maturity norm-alignment score |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 0 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 生成式人工智能（AIGC）正快速进入学术出版的各个环节，但中文学术期刊在AIGC治理方面的政策现状，尤其是同行评议与保密管理方面，仍缺乏系统的实证研究。本文以入选“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划（二期）”的190种中文学术期刊为研究对象，基于其官网公开政策文本构建人工智能政策成熟度-规范一致性指数（PMS-N），评估其AIGC治理水平与结构特征。研究显示：38种（20.0%）期刊发布了AIGC相关政策；政策集中于作者端，“作者使用与披露”维度得分显著高于“同行评议与编辑保密”维度；样本PMS-N平均47.39分，整体处于由披露型向规范型过渡；同行评议规则明显不足，明确界定审稿人AIGC使用边界、禁止AIGC生成审稿意见的期刊分别仅占23.7%和13.2%。研究表明，当前中文学术期刊的公开政策明显作者端强、同行评议端弱，审稿边界规则与保密治理措施相对薄弱。未来政策优化应在统一底线要求的基础上，事先厘清审稿环节的AIGC使用边界、按学科差异细化规则，并借助技术手段保证规则落实。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Abstract Generative Artificial Intelligence (referred to as AIGC) is rapidly entering various stages of academic publishing, including manuscript writing, content dissemination, and peer review assistance, continuously reshaping the operational modes and institutional framework of publishing activities. However, the current state of AIGC governance in Chinese academic journals remains empirically underexamined, particularly regarding peer review and confidentiality management. Taking 190 Chinese academic journals selected for the second phase of “Excellence Action Plan for China’s STM journals” as the study sample, this study constructed a Policy Maturity and Norm-alignment Score (PMS-N) based on their publicly available policy texts to assess the level and structural characteristics of their AIGC governance. The results showed that: 1) Among the 190 sampled journals, 38 (20.0%) had issued AIGC-related policies. 2) Existing policies were concentrated on the author guidelines, with significantly higher scores on the “author use and disclosure” dimension than on the “peer review and editorial confidentiality” dimension. 3) The mean PMS-N score for the sample journals was 47.39, indicating that most journals were transitioning from a “disclosure-oriented” to a “regulation-oriented” stage. 4) Rules governing peer review were particularly insufficient: only 23.7% of journals clearly defined the boundaries for reviewers’ use of AIGC, and only 13.2% prohibited the use of AIGC to draft review comments. Overall, the publicly available policies of Chinese academic journals are clearly stronger on the author side than on the peer-review side, with relatively weak provisions for reviewing boundaries and confidentiality. Future policy development should establish unified baseline requirements, clarify in advance what AIGC uses are permitted or prohibited during peer review, refine rules according to disciplinary differences, and use technical measures to ensure that these rules are implemented in practice. |
|
View Fulltext
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
