− HEALTH We are the last generation that will influence what wellbeing means before AI systems optimize that definitio…− HEALTH Abstract There is much discussion of the false outputs that generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Ge…± SCIENCE This article presents a Delphi consensus developed by a panel of editors-in-chief of anaesthesiology and pain…+ EDUCATION The study investigated how innovative, AI-supported teaching methods relate to the mathematics problem-solvin…+ EDUCATION As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, understanding how students engage wit…+ HEALTH In the complex and multidimensional field of medicine, multimodal data are prevalent and crucial for informed…± SCIENCE This paper explores the evolution of geoscientific inquiry, tracing the progression from traditional physics-…− POLICY This paper conducts a systematic review and interdisciplinary analysis of the ethical challenges of generativ…
TruaceTracing the truth around AIMonday, July 20, 2026
Subscribe
Science·The Trace·Automated dual reading·Published 2026-07-20

use of large language models in manuscript authorship, peer review and editorial processes for anaesthesia and pain medicine journals

Source article: 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)

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-rou…

TRV-2026-0374Peer-reviewedPermanent record — cite & verify
Trace impact reading

Contested: both sides are scored from claims and sources, not community votes.

P 70The P score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded problem claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.G 67The G score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded gain claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.
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)

Note to Readers/Message From the New Chief Editor by Dragoset, Robert A. Vorburger, Theodore. Public domain

The quick read

By February 2026, 53 editors-in-chief or delegates in anaesthesiology and pain medicine completed a three-round modified Delphi to produce 59 statements on responsible LLM use. The group agreed LLMs may help with limited editorial and authorial tasks if fully disclosed and human-verified, but must not create original ideas, data, references, conclusions, full manuscripts, or make editorial or peer-review decisions.

The guidance matters because anaesthesia journals face growing LLM-assisted submissions that could undermine accuracy and confidentiality while also offering support for language editing and organisation, especially for non-native English speakers. Uncertainty remains about how disclosure and verification will be enforced across journals and whether the anaesthesia-specific consensus will transfer to other disciplines.

Main points
  • Three-round modified Delphi process involved 53 editors-in-chief or their delegates and generated 59 statements.
  • Guidance was categorised for authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers with attention to disclosure practices and perceived risks.
  • Consensus states LLMs must not generate data, references, conclusions, or entire manuscripts, nor be used for editorial decisions or peer-review reports.
Gain

LLMs can assist authors, reviewers and editors with limited tasks such as language editing, summarisation, translation and information organisation when use is disclosed and verified.

Problem

Misuse of LLMs in manuscript preparation and peer review risks hallucinations, confidentiality breaches, erosion of critical skills, and proliferation of low-quality manuscripts.

The rundown

The Delphi process produced 59 statements organised for authors, editors, reviewers and publishers, focusing on disclosure and risk. The consensus allows limited assistance provided that use is fully disclosed and all outputs are verified by humans.

It draws a clear boundary that original or ideative content should remain a strictly human responsibility and prohibits generating data, references, conclusions, entire manuscripts, editorial decisions or peer-review reports.

What this doesn’t fix

Findings reflect consensus of editors-in-chief in anaesthesiology and pain medicine, not broader scientific fields, based on 53 participants.

Sources

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

The debate