arXiv:2608.25050cs.SEcs.AI2026-08中稿 · be presented at AG…

为AI辅助文献综述提供可审计的全流程规范

ARISMA: Guidelines for AI- and LLM-Assisted Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Mapping Studies

论文配图:ARISMA: Guidelines for AI- and LLM-Assisted Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Mapping Studies
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 将AI视为需验证、记录、可回溯的助手而非自主评审者
  • 明确关键决策必须由人保持可解释、可审查、可问责
  • 覆盖从流程到报告的完整指南,适合研究者与期刊使用

随着检索量、更新周期和综合要求持续增长,传统人工开展系统评价、范围综述和映射研究愈发困难。与此同时,人工智能、机器学习及大语言模型正快速介入查询构建、筛选、数据提取、分类、质量评估与报告等环节。然而现有实证证据不均衡、任务依赖性强,尚不足以支持无约束自动化。尽管PRISMA 2020、PRISMA-S、PRISMA-ScR、PRISMA-P、PRESS、SWiM等标准仍具核心价值,但均未提供端到端的操作规范,说明在何种情况下使用AI合适、如何验证、哪些决策必须人为主导,以及如何报告以供读者审计。本文提出ARISMA——AI报告与集成系统方法与分析标准。ARISMA将AI视为需被检验、基准化、记录且可逆的助手,核心原则是:所有关键科学决策必须保持人类可解释、可审查、可问责。论文贡献包括生命周期分类法、流程指引、审查流程各阶段建议、治理与溯源模型、工具支持框架、整合AI的报告清单及验证矩阵,并涵盖法律、隐私、基础设施与可持续性考量。该框架经结构化专家咨询迭代优化,形成可实践、可审计的责任型AI辅助证据综合指南。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, mapping studies, and related evidence syntheses are increasingly difficult to conduct with fully manual workflows as search volumes, update cycles, and synthesis requirements continue to expand. At the same time, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and large language models are rapidly entering review practice across query formulation, screening, extraction, categorization, appraisal support, and reporting. Yet the empirical evidence remains uneven, task-dependent, and insufficient to justify unconstrained automation. Existing standards such as PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-S, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-P, PRESS, and SWiM remain essential, but none provides an end-to-end operational standard for when AI use is methodologically appropriate, how it should be validated, which review decisions must remain human-led, and how AI involvement should be reported so that readers can audit it. This paper proposes ARISMA, an AI Reporting and Integration standard for Systematic Methods and Analysis. ARISMA treats AI as an inspected, benchmarked, logged, and reversible assistant rather than an autonomous reviewer. It is built around one governing principle: every consequential scientific decision must remain human-interpretable, human-auditable, and human-accountable. The paper contributes a lifecycle taxonomy, process guidance, stepwise recommendations across the review pipeline, a governance and provenance model, a tool-support framework, an AI-integrated reporting checklist, and a validation matrix. It also addresses legal, privacy, infrastructure, and sustainability considerations. The framework was iteratively refined through structured expert consultation. The result is a practical and auditable guideline for responsible AI-assisted evidence synthesis.

文献综述AI辅助研究规范可审计

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。