Determining Accountability in AI-Assisted Scholarship: A Report and Recommendations

Abstract

The proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) presents a significant challenge to traditional notions of accountability in scholarly publishing. This report addresses the pressing question of who is responsible for the content of academic work when its creation involves AI assistance. It does so by introducing and extending Erving Goffman’s (1981a, b) concept of production format, a framework that deconstructs the singular speaker into three distinct roles: animator, author (herein re-labelled designer), and principal. By applying this framework to written, scholarly communication, this report analyzes two key problems: the accountability of publishers and platforms as relaying animators and the apparent displacement of the authorial role by GenAI. The analysis draws on recent empirical evidence of journal policy adoption and theoretical applications of Goffman’s work to the AI context. It pays particular attention to the implications for open access publishing, where the democratization of knowledge creation must be balanced with the imperative for rigorous accountability. The report concludes that while GenAI can assume a large proportion of the designer function of shaping textual form, the ultimate accountability for scholarly work must remain with a human principal. Detailed recommendations are provided for scholars, publishers (with specific focus on open access journals), and academic institutions to navigate the new landscape of AI-assisted authorship, ensuring transparency and preserving the integrity of academic discourse.