Responsible use of large language models in manuscript authorship, peer review, and editorial processes: a Delphi consensus among editors-in-chief of anaesthesia and pain medicine journals (RULE-AP)

作者：Alessandro DE CASSAI, Burhan Dost, John G. Augoustides, Leonard Azamfirei, Zekeriyya Alanoğlu, L. M. T. D. A. Azi, Jose Andrés Calvache, Vladimír Černý, Stefan G. De Hert, Abdelazeem Eldawlatly, Michaela Kristina Farber, Diogo Sobreira-Fernandes, Michael Robert Fettiplace, Dario Galante, Rakesh Kumar Garg, Heidi V. Goldstein, Alfredo Abad Gurumeta, Lalit Gupta, Hugh C. Hemmings, Christopher A. Jones, Marc C. Hochberg, Joel Katz, Hyun Kang, GK Talu, Durval Campos Kraychete, Ruth Landau, Sangseok Lee Lee, Hillary D. Lum, Christina Lundgren, P. T. R. Makuloluwa, Paolo Martelletti, Tonya Mizell Palermo, Philip J. Peyton, Pierrick Poisbeau, James P. Rathmell, Antoine Roquilly, Stephan K.W. Schwarz, Madhuragauri Shevade, Paul A. Sloan, BobbieJean Sweitzer, Ary Serpa Neto, Philip Frank Stahel, Zerrin Özköse ŞATIRLAR, Alparslan Turan, Dennis C. Turk, Massimiliano Valeriani, Mads U. Werner, Paul Young, Igor Borisovich Zabolotskikh, Kai D. Zacharowski, Szymon Zdanowski · 发表于：British Journal of Anaesthesia · 年份：2026 · DOI：10.1016/j.bja.2026.01.029 · 被引用次数：21 · 研究领域：Diversity and Career in Medicine、Academic Writing and Publishing、Sex and Gender in Healthcare

This article presents a Delphi consensus developed by a panel of editors-in-chief of anaesthesiology and pain medicine journals to guide the responsible use of large language models (LLMs) in academic publishing. LLMs offer potential benefits for scientific writing, including language editing, summarisation, translation, information organisation, and support for non-native English speakers, but their misuse raises concerns about accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, and research integrity. Through a three-round modified Delphi process involving 53 editors-in-chief or their delegates, 59 statements were generated and categorised into guidance for authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers with a particular attention to LLM disclosure practices and perceived risks. The consensus recognises that LLMs are useful tools in academic publishing for authors, reviewers, and editors. However, their use must be guided by ethics, legality, and principles of transparency and accountability. LLMs may assist with limited editorial and authorial tasks provided that their use is fully disclosed and all outputs are verified by humans. The consensus also emphasises the inappropriateness of using LLMs to generate original or ideative content, which should remain a strictly human responsibility. Moreover, LLMs must not generate data, references, conclusions, or entire manuscripts, nor be used for editorial decisions or peer-review reports. Editors expressed concerns about 'hallucinations', ero...