A novel “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for evaluating artificial intelligence–generated scholarly manuscripts
Article information
Abstract
This paper introduces a novel application of the “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework to improve the thoroughness and organization of academic editorial review processes. It demonstrates that the CDIO framework, originally applied to engineering education, can also be adapted for reviewing creative and interdisciplinary ideas. The adaptation of the CDIO framework for editorial review is already evident in scholarly publications, and this paper extends its application to include reviews of content produced by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms. The “conceive” stage focuses on developing clear research questions and objectives that align with the key moments of article conception. It ensures that content produced by AI begins with an ethical scientific foundation and maintains this integrity throughout the process. The “design” stage emphasizes maintaining scientific accuracy and clarity of presentation. It considers all critical manuscript design elements and incorporates methods to evaluate the originality and rationality of AI-generated data and analysis. The “implementation” stage is concerned with the effective communication of findings, providing insights into how the manuscript is perceived. It is crucial for data generation or tool usage involving AI. The “operate stage” involves analyzing the findings and their overall impact on the field, ensuring a comprehensive assessment from all perspectives when AI-generated content is integrated into academic discourse, which has broader implications. By applying the CDIO framework innovatively, this paper offers a systematic and comprehensive method for conducting editorial reviews. This ensures that manuscripts generated by AI are subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as those authored by humans. This approach improves the quality, transparency, and reputation of scholarly publications. We examine each stage of the CDIO process, achieving uniformity and clarity, and providing a more precise evaluation of both traditional and AI-assisted academic research.
Introduction
Background
In the dynamic realm of academic publishing, the polished appearance of a journal is supported by a meticulously designed set of editing procedures that ensure the quality of its articles [1]. With the changing demands for academics, there is increasing recognition of the need for new approaches to increase the completeness and structure of manuscript review [2]. This paper boldly suggests that this emerging method should be integrated into editorial review processes, not only for its proven effectiveness in engineering education but also for its increasing acceptance in the sphere of conscientious innovation in modern China. The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework’s flexibility and adaptability introduce uniquely innovative perspectives on the evaluation of academic papers. The foundational principles of this method, which involve the conceptual design, construction, and implementation of a research study from start to finish, provide a comprehensive and systematic framework for the editorial review process.
As the academic community increasingly transforms knowledge from notebooks into published research, there is a growing demand for consistent, standardized editorial reviews [3]. The CDIO framework provides a systematic approach to manuscript evaluation at each critical development stage, ensuring that manuscripts meet traditional standards for methodological rigor and clarity. This comprehensive review process includes assessing the manuscript’s conception, design, implementation, and operation. By integrating the CDIO framework into editorial review, we aim to fundamentally transform the traditional mode of assessment. Our goal is to ensure that all contributions are evaluated thoroughly, comprehensively, and incisively.
Objectives
This paper explores the rationale and potential advantages of using the CDIO paradigm in editorial review. The study examines each stage of the CDIO framework within the context of manuscript evaluation. It will suggest how a systematic review approach can enhance clarity, promote consistency, and offer new insights into structural similarities. Furthermore, using specific and real-life examples, we aim to demonstrate the practicality and benefits of this innovative methodology across various academic disciplines. By conducting this research, we seek to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on refining editorial review processes and raising the quality standards of academic publications.
CDIO framework
The CDIO framework represents a unique approach to teaching that sets it apart from other engineering schools [4]. Originating from the innovative thinking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CDIO replaces traditional memorization-based learning with a more practical, project-based educational model [5,6]. Below, each stage of the CDIO framework is described in greater detail, along with recommendations for classroom application. This structure comprises four essential steps [7].
• In the “conceive” stage, students identify and articulate engineering problems. They are encouraged to view these issues from a broader perspective, considering their social implications. At this point, objectives for the project are established. This stage fosters creative thinking and problem-solving skills.
• The “design” stage involves devising solutions to identified problems within a meaningful context: how does engineering function? Students engage in the design of engineering devices, taking into account factors such as feasibility, sustainability, and functionality. This stage emphasizes the development of critical thinking and collaboration, as students work together to create innovative solutions.
• Once the design is fully established, students move on to the “implement” stage. This process involves transforming the abstract solution into a tangible product or system. By applying their theoretical knowledge in practical settings, utilizing engineering tools, and addressing unforeseen challenges, students gain valuable hands-on experience.
• The final stage involves operating and maintaining the developed solutions. Knowledge dissemination during this process encompasses aspects of the engineering product life cycle, including usability, reliability, and sustainability. This stage focuses on the ultimate outcomes of engineering projects.
The primary objective of the CDIO framework is to cultivate engineers who not only possess technical proficiency but also excel in critical thinking, teamwork, and practical problemsolving [8,9]. This approach is geared towards preparing students to manage the complex and dynamic challenges of an engineering career. A key feature of project and applied learning is the integration of course design. The editorial review process incorporates the CDIO framework.
CDIO for the editorial review process
Editorial review is the process that scholarly submissions undergo before they can be published in academic journals or other research outlets. This process involves multiple evaluations by editors and peer reviewers, who assess the quality, authenticity, and relevance of the submitted work [10]. The primary goal of editorial review is to maintain the integrity and authenticity of scholarly publications by subjecting manuscripts to rigorous scrutiny. This mechanism plays a crucial role in the academic community by filtering out research articles that do not meet conventionally recognized standards. Editorial review is essential for maintaining the quality of published research findings, advancing human knowledge, and upholding the standards of academic publications and institutions [11].
The CDIO framework, originally developed to improve engineering education, can be effectively applied in editorial review to ensure rigorous and systematic evaluations of submitted manuscripts. In the review process, the components “conceive,” “design,” “implement,” and “operate” represent critical areas of focus. “Conceive” involves the formulation of precise research questions and objectives. “Design” emphasizes the necessity for methodological rigor and justification. “Implement” pertains to the effective presentation of results, while “operate” relates to the interpretation of findings and their overall significance. When utilizing the CDIO framework, editors can systematically analyze manuscripts throughout all stages of authorship, providing authors with valuable feedback and ensuring that the review process is both fair and thorough. This systematic approach is well-suited to the nature of academic work [12]. With this framework, editorial reviews can move beyond a piecemeal approach.
During the initial evaluation of an article for a scientific journal, it is crucial to ensure that the title is clear and accurate, effectively reflecting the content of the article. The abstract plays a vital role as it succinctly summarizes the report’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The “conceive” stage is considered the most critical part of a study [13]. At this stage, formulating precise research questions or hypotheses is essential as they guide the direction of the entire project [14]. The introduction and literature review should provide sufficient background to enable readers to understand the significance and scope of the research. These elements are important for the “conceive” stage and lay a solid foundation for moving into subsequent stages.
The transition to the “design” stage involves stepping back from content and carefully considering the quality and practical difficulties of the research methodology. Reviewers assess the clarity of the methodology to determine if other research groups can easily replicate the study [15]. The selection of an adequate sample size and its characteristics is crucial for the generalizability of the study [16]. The choice of techniques, particularly statistical methods, is equally critical; these methods must be carefully chosen and appropriately applied to align with the research strategy. Reviewers rigorously examine how results are interpreted and integrated into the existing body of research. Understanding and addressing the limitations of a study are essential for a comprehensive understanding of economic research, leading to recommendations for enhancing its design.
In the “implement” stage, methods such as well-structured tables and figures are utilized to ensure clarity and ease of understanding for all terms used [17,18]. A study must meticulously address ethical considerations and secure the necessary approvals, if applicable, to comply fully with ethical standards. Maintaining transparency about potential conflicts of interest is crucial for preserving the integrity of the research. The writing should be clear and concise, and logically organized, with each sentence conveying a single main idea, which enhances the reader’s ability to understand the content [19]. Specifically, feedback during this stage focuses on refining the presentation of results, ensuring the study is accessible to a broad audience.
In the final stage of the study, known as the “operate” stage, data and discussion results are synthesized into conclusions. Additionally, an evaluation assesses whether these conclusions logically align with the study’s objectives. Reviewers meticulously scrutinize the clarity of the presented findings, assessing how effectively the work communicates its practical and theoretical contributions. There is a strong emphasis on the accurate citation of sources to maintain academic integrity. The relevance and timeliness of references strengthen the study’s foundation in current knowledge. By evaluating the study’s strengths and weaknesses, a fair review is ensured, and the final recommendation—whether to accept, amend, or reject— summarizes the overall quality and contribution of the study [20,21]. This holistic approach adheres to the CDIO framework, which highlights the sequential progression from idea and design to implementation and operation. The details of the CDIO stages for the review process are presented in Table 1, and the CDIO framework for the review process is depicted in Fig. 1.
The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” stages for the review process
The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for the review process. IMRAD, introduction, method, results, and discussion.
Strengths, weakness, and justification
Applying the CDIO framework to editorial review introduces a rigorous methodology that ensures a thorough assessment of AI-generated manuscripts, providing a systematic approach from start to finish. This method enhances the clarity and thoroughness of the review process, offering authors detailed feedback on various aspects of their work. The framework’s emphasis on comprehensive evaluation aligns seamlessly with the diverse characteristics of scholarly contributions, prompting reviewers to consider technical aspects, ethical considerations, practical implications, and broader contextual significance within a specific field. By promoting a comprehensive evaluation, the CDIO framework significantly improves the overall quality and rigor of the editorial review process.
Applying the CDIO framework to journal reviews presents several challenges. The most significant issue is likely the difficulty of adopting and popularizing this approach across various disciplines, as each has its own unique criteria for academic evaluation and research methodologies. The framework may struggle to effectively engage with the wide range of fields it encompasses, potentially encountering new issues that have not been previously addressed in a general context [22]. Additionally, the extensive resource requirements needed to conduct a systemic assessment covering all stages of CDIO pose a significant barrier, especially given the limited availability of reviewers’ time [23]. This makes the consistent and practical implementation of such a framework in the review of machine-generated papers on AI problematic.
Although the CDIO model offers a structured process that provides reviewers with a clear and consistent pattern for evaluating AI-generated manuscripts, its general applicability remains uncertain. This system ensures both consistency and thoroughness throughout the review process. However, significant challenges persist. The framework must be adapted to suit different disciplines, requiring substantial resources to effectively implement these changes. Enhancing the flexibility of the framework could facilitate broader adoption. This could be accomplished by establishing flexible rules that account for disciplinary variations and by streamlining the review process. As a tool that significantly improves the meticulousness and quality of editorial reviews, the CDIO framework is unparalleled. With some fine-tuning, it has the potential to greatly advance the standard of excellence in journal publishing.
Conclusion
Using the CDIO framework to select scientific journals ensures a systematic and thorough evaluation process. This framework guides the operation from the initial research topic through the study’s design and ongoing execution, allowing reviewers to assess its clarity, methodology, presentation of results, and overall impact in the field. By applying CDIO theory to guide their review questions, reviewers can provide more focused and insightful feedback. They encourage the author to enhance various aspects of her work, leading to a comprehensive presentation of the rationale of the entire project. Introducing new technology and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration could significantly benefit research techniques. Innovations such as pre-registration and data sharing, integral to open science reforms, are wired into this approach. Moreover, continuous efforts to refine the peer-review process and provide professional training for reviewers would enhance the quality and reliability of scientific publications. These improvements could strengthen and extend the influence of the scientific community as research progresses.
Notes
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for this article.
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Supplementary Materials
The authors did not provide any supplementary materials for this article.