Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-0374
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-07-20T09:15:40.249646Z
status: published
lens: trace
sector: science
headline: 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)
dek: 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…
gain_title: 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_title: Misuse of LLMs in manuscript preparation and peer review risks hallucinations, confidentiality breaches, erosion of critical skills, and proliferation of low-quality manuscripts.
trace_subject: use of large language models in manuscript authorship, peer review and editorial processes for anaesthesia and pain medicine journals
gain_reading: 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.
gain_evidence: LLMs offer potential benefits for scientific writing, including language editing, summarisation, translation, information organisation, and support for non-native English speakers | LLMs are useful tools in academic publishing for authors, reviewers, and editors
problem_reading: Misuse of LLMs in manuscript preparation and peer review risks hallucinations, confidentiality breaches, erosion of critical skills, and proliferation of low-quality manuscripts.
problem_evidence: Editors expressed concerns about 'hallucinations', erosion of critical skills, confidentiality breaches, and the proliferation of low-quality LLM-generated manuscripts. | their misuse raises concerns about accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, and research integrity
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.
limitation: Findings reflect consensus of editors-in-chief in anaesthesiology and pain medicine, not broader scientific fields, based on 53 participants.
tag: Automated dual reading
key_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.
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.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | British Journal of Anaesthesia | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2026.01.029 | 2026-02-26
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

sha256

21d0609831ce33fd9ca2e66eed5e28259724fcc1666079540a3e9a6e2008d969

previous

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000