En el ámbito académico existen diferentes tipos de artículos (journal papers):

• investigaciones originales o estudios empíricos
• artículos de revisión de literatura
• artículos teóricos 
• artículos metodológicos 
• estudios de casos, etc.

Tipos de artículos de investigación según el método:

• artículos cuantitativos
• artículos cualitativos
• artículos de métodos mixtos
• artículos de replicación.

Para saber más sobre la organización y la estructura de los trabajos de investigación pueden consultar la sección Cómo documentar y organizar un trabajo académico de la guía temática Integridad académica y ética de la investigación.

Amercian Psychological Association (APA) en su página provee información como organizar la página principal (Title Page Setup) de un trabajo de investigación:  

APA también desglosa los detalles relacionados con cada elemento de la página principal y ofrece ejemplos: 

Definiciones

El Diccionario de la lengua española de la RAE entre otros significados define el autor como “Persona que ha producido una obra científica, literaria o artística.”

El U.S. Copyright Office indica sobre el tema lo siguiente:

“¿Quién es un autor?

Bajo la ley de derechos de autor, el creador de la expresión original de una obra es su autor. El autor también es el titular de los derechos de autor salvo que exista un acuerdo escrito por el cual el autor le asigna los derechos de autor a otra persona o entidad, como una editorial. Cuando se trata de obras creadas por un contrato de alquiler de obra o de servicios, se considera que el empleador o quien encarga la obra es el autor.”

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

“The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged…” 

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Authorship

“The term authorship can refer to the creator or originator of an idea (eg, the author of the theory of relativity) or the individual or individuals who develop and bring to fruition the product that disseminates intellectual or creative works (eg, the author of a poem or a scholarly article). Authorship conveys significant privileges, responsibilities, and legal rights; in the scholarly arena, it also forms the basis for rewards and career advancement. Various disciplines have norms, guidelines, and rules governing authorship; some of those rules preserve the lineage of ideas or works, assign credit for the conception, implementation and analysis of studies or experiments to validate theory or explain hypotheses, and the actual writing of work to disseminate knowledge. Authors are accountable for following discipline-specific guidelines when they engage in authorship activities; journal editors and publishers are accountable for making author guidelines transparent and appropriate for the medium and genre (scholarly books, journal articles, creative writing). At a minimum, authors should guarantee that they have participated in creating the work as presented and that they have not violated any other author’s legal rights (eg, copyright) in the process.” 

En APA Publishing Policies la autoría se define: “Authorship is reserved for persons who make a substantial contribution to and who accept responsibility for a published work. Individuals should take authorship credit only for work they have performed or to which they have substantially contributed (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12a, Publication Credit).”

Para definir los asuntos de la autoría múltiples revistas de American Psychological Association (APA) adoptan Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) de NISO.  

Para conocer más sobre autoría puede consultar también la guía temática Integridad académica y ética de la investigación: Autoría. 

Las oficinas reguladoras de los derechos de autor como U.S. Copyright Office y las asociaciones y comités internacionales de editores que establecen las normativas legales y éticas respecto la autoría, su alcance y protección legal y ética esbozan posturas similares respecto el uso de la inteligencia artificial y la autoría de los trabajos de investigación. Algunos de los documentos relacionados se citan a continuación.

United States Copyright Office

Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence

“II. The Human Authorship Requirement

In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans. The Office’s registration policies and regulations reflect statutory and judicial guidance on this issue. In its leading case on authorship, the Supreme Court used language excluding non-humans in interpreting Congress’s constitutional power to provide “authors” the exclusive right to their “writings.” ¹¹ (2023, pp.2-3) 

“The Court defined an “author” as “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.” ¹⁴ It repeatedly referred to such “authors” as human, describing authors as a class of “persons” ¹⁵ and a copyright as “the exclusive right of a man to the production of his own genius or intellect.” ¹⁶ (2023, p.3)

Authorship and AI tools COPE Position Statement 2023

“The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT or Large Language Models in research publications is expanding rapidly. COPE joins organisations, such as WAME and the JAMA Network among others, to state that AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper.

AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements.

Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics." 

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

"4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

“At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section (see Section II.A.3). If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods (see Section IV.A.3.d). Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.”

American Psychological Association (APA)

APA Journals policy on generative AI: Additional guidance

“Generative artificial intelligence, specifically the kind based on Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, has become a transformative force in many fields. Scholarly writing and publishing are no different, and generative AI has begun to have an impact on scholarly work.

APA’s current policies on generative AI are:

• When a generative AI model is used in the drafting of a manuscript for an APA publication, the use of AI must be disclosed in the methods section and cited.
• AI cannot be named as an author on an APA scholarly publication.
• When AI is cited in an APA scholarly publication, the author must employ the software citation template, which includes specifying in the methods section how, when, and to what extent AI was used. Authors in APA publications are required to upload the full output of the AI as supplemental material.” 

Las posturas resumidas de algunos editoriales de revistas científicas respecto al uso de la IA en la investigación y publicación científica:
Elsevier Generative AI policies for journals 

• Where authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work.
• The authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.
• Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work.
• Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. 

Emerald Publishing’s stance on AI tools in content creation and the peer review process

• Specifically, that as those tools cannot take accountability for the work generated and be responsible for that content, they cannot be credited with the authorship of any Emerald publication, and the use of generative AI tools within the development of an Emerald publication must be flagged by the author(s) within the article, case study, or chapter, as well as at submission.
• Emerald does not permit the use of AI tools or Large Language Models to assist in the review, evaluation, or decision-making process of any part of an article, case study, or chapter by either a member of a journal’s Editorial Team or a reviewer, in accordance with Emerald’s principles of peer review.
• Emerald also does not permit the submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models.

Sage:  Using AI in peer review and publishing

Taylor & Francis AI Policy

Springer Nature Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

We believe in using AI responsibly and for the benefit of the research community, our authors, editors and readers, and our staff.

• SN does not attribute authorship to AI.
• SN does not allow the inclusion of generative AI images in our publications.
• SN asks peer reviewers not to upload manuscripts into generative AI tools. 

Puntos comunes en las políticas editoriales sobre el uso de la IA:

• AI tools cannot be authors: All policies state that AI tools, such as ChatGPT, cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the work.
• Disclosure of AI use: Authors must disclose the use of AI tools in their manuscripts. This includes specifying how and to what extent AI was used.
• Human oversight: The policies emphasize that while AI can assist in improving readability and language, the final responsibility for the content lies with the human authors. Authors must review and edit AI-generated content to ensure accuracy and integrity.
• Restrictions on AI use in peer review: AI tools should not be used in the peer review process to maintain confidentiality and the integrity of the review.