AI Policy – In the Library with the Lead Pipe

AI Policy in Brief

We expect all submitted drafts to be fundamentally based on the original thinking and in the original voice of the human author(s). We encourage authors to contact us if they have concerns or need support.

Any content generated by AI must be disclosed in the article’s proposal and cited within the manuscript. This includes (but is not limited to) data analysis, generated text, images, or translations.

AI Disclosure Checklist:

Did you use a generative AI tool as part of your process to write this manuscript, analyze data, or create images?
Name of the generative AI tool used. (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Meta AI, etc.)
Brief description of how the AI tool was used in your writing process.
Rationale for AI use.
If you included AI generated text in your submission, did you fact check the manuscript, review for plagiarized text, and significantly revise it first?
Final prompt given. (You will need to log in to the genAI tool to track this, unless you track your prompts another way.)
Final response generated. (You will need to log in to the genAI tool to track this, unless you track your responses another way.)

Full AI Policy

While we acknowledge the various perspectives people have towards generative AI (genAI), including concerns about environmental damage and labor abuses, our policy response is largely related to the bullshit factor.

We see a fundamental difference between assistive tools built into commonly utilized desktop or cloud-based software applications that refine the linguistic or intellectual work a writer has already done (e.g., grammar suggestions in MS Word or formula suggestions in Google Sheets) and generative tools that produce a new text or image and/or develop an argument, draw conclusions, synthesize concepts, or analyze information for the author (e.g., ChatGPT). We find a meaningful distinction between when an author knows the answer or has worked through the ideas already and when an author uses external tools to do the thinking for them.

We’re not the venue for manuscripts generated by AI because they are by their nature bullshit. In the Library with the Lead Pipe works hard to develop trusting, respectful relationships with our writers and reviewers. The bullshit of genAI gets in the way of us being able to trust that authors know what they’re talking about and that they’re experts in their areas who have engaged conscientiously with the ideas of people who’ve gone before them. It also means that any developmental critiques we provide with the hope of helping authors strengthen their writing is a waste of time; telling someone to tell ChatGPT that we want more of their own voice is not why we’re here.

Our experience reading content generated by these tools is that they are often filled with errors. They are frequently written in a way that manages to have a lot of rhetorical flourishes while being flat and boring to read. Additionally, we require all authors to answer a question about how their positionality or identity informs their relationship to the topic they are writing about and to consider whether the design or framing of their research reinforces negative stereotypes about any minoritized populations. Generative AI tools cannot answer those questions, and generated content may be created from data that is itself biased and contains stereotypes. Because of these factors, among others, we are not interested in publishing this type of content.

We are open to articles written about AI tools in libraries, especially those that take a critical approach to the topic in a way consistent with our scope.

We welcome authors who’ve used AI tools during their pre-writing work (e.g., brainstorming and outlining; transcribing interviews), but we discourage authors from using genAI to produce or synthesize ideas.

Generative AI is a rapidly changing field. As a result, we will regularly review this policy (along with our other editorial policies and procedures), to ensure that we continue to publish high quality research articles that match the vision and values of the editorial board of In the Library with the Lead Pipe.