Prompt engineering architecture for the development of scientific discussions
an exploratory multiple-case study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47456/biblios.2026.1425Keywords:
artificial intelligence, scientific communication, research methodology, scientific researchAbstract
Objective. To develop and examine a prompt engineering architecture for producing scientific discussions and its implications for AI-mediated academic communication. Method. Exploratory multiple-case design, qualitative non-experimental approach, applying the Prompt Architecture for Scientific Discussion (PASD) to five studies across disciplines. Results. The architecture integrates introduction, method, results, and references, generating an initial draft refined through supervised iterations. It supports structured argumentation, consistency with empirical data, and progressive integration of literature without non-verifiable information, showing a stable generate-and-refine pattern. Conclusions. The study proposes a methodology that systematizes the use of language models in scientific discussions, enabling controlled integration aligned with research integrity and editorial responsibility.
References
Chelli, M., Descamps, J., Lavoué, V., Trojani, C., Azar, M., Deckert, M., Raynier, J.-L., Clowez, G., Boileau, P., & Ruetsch-Chelli, C. (2024). Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for systematic reviews: Comparative analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26. https://doi.org/10.2196/53164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/53164
Codina, L. (2025). Uso ético y eficiente de la inteligencia artificial en trabajos académicos: Veritas e interacción crítica escalonada. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 55. https://doi.org/10.1344/bid2025.55.01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/bid2025.55.01
Codina, L., Freixa, P., Peña, S., & Lopezosa, C. (2026). Criterios para el uso transparente, ético y responsable de la inteligencia artificial en publicaciones científicas (CRITERIA). Observatorio de Cibermedios, Grupo de Investigación DigiDoc, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. https://doi.org/10.31009/coc.05.2026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zhjkm_v1
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M., Al-Busaidi, K. A., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., . . . Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Flanagin, A., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Berkwits, M., & Christiansen, S. L. (2023). Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA, 329(8), 637–639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.1344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.1344
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. npj Digital Medicine, 6, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
Giray, L. (2023). Prompt engineering with ChatGPT: A guide for academic writers. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 51(12), 2629–2633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03272-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03272-4
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023, mayo). Up-dated ICMJE recommendations (May 2023) [Recomendaciones ICMJE actualizadas (mayo de 2023)]. https://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/updated_recommendations_may2023.html
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E. Á., & Lause, J. (2025). Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary. Science Advances, 11(27), eadt3813. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt3813 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt3813
Lee, Y., Oh, J. H., Lee, D., Kang, M., & Lee, S. (2025). Prompt engineering in ChatGPT for literature review: Practical guide exemplified with studies on white phosphors. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 15310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-99423-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-99423-9
Li, Y., Xu, X., Lyu, D., Zhang, Z., Xie, J., & Cheng, Y. (2025). Developing a criteria framework for peer review: A critical interpretive synthesis. Learned Publishing, 38(3), e2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2016
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X. D., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., Yang, D., Potts, C., Manning, C. D., & Zou, J. (2025). Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 2599–2609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8
Mugaanyi, J., Cai, L., Cheng, S., Lu, C., & Huang, J. (2024). Evaluation of large language model performance and reliability for citations and references in scholarly writing: Cross-disciplinary study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e52935. https://doi.org/10.2196/52935 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/52935
Rivas Ruiz, F. (2017). Cómo publicar un artículo original en revistas científicas con factor de impacto. Revista Pediatría de Atención Primaria Suplementos, (26), 101–109.
Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947), 214–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
Vieytes, R. (2004). Metodología de la investigación en organizaciones, mercado y sociedad: Epistemología y técnicas. Editorial de las Ciencias.
World Association of Medical Editors. (2023, 20 de enero). Chatbots, ChatGPT, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on ChatGPT and chatbots in relation to scholarly publications [Chatbots, ChatGPT y manuscritos académicos: recomendaciones de WAME]. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=110
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carlos Castillo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.
