Integrazione Algoritmica Trasparente nella Systematic Review (IATSR): Una proposta metodologica per la ricerca pedagogica nell’epoca dell’intelligenza artificiale
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XXIV-02-26_03Parole chiave:
Revisione sistematica, PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-trAIce, Intelligenza Artificiale, Human-in-the-loop, Trasparenza, Riproducibilità, Ricerca pedagogica, Formazione alla ricercaAbstract
Il contributo propone, descrive e argomenta una struttura metodologica (IATSR, Integrazione Algoritmica Trasparente nella Systematic Review) per condurre revisioni sistematiche assistite da strumenti algoritmici nei campi non-bibliometrici afferenti ai settori PAED-01 e PAED-02. La proposta muove da un problema ormai avvertito nella prassi editoriale e documentato nella letteratura internazionale: la diffusione di un uso non dichiarato della cosiddetta intelligenza artificiale generativa nella produzione scientifica, con effetti sulla qualità, sulla verificabilità e sull’equità della ricerca educativa. Si argomenta che l’integrazione algoritmica, se resa costitutiva e dichiarata del protocollo entro il modello PRISMA 2020, possa essere condotta in modo rigoroso, trasparente e verificabile. Il workflow si articola in sette fasi, assume gli elementi già presenti in PRISMA-trAIce (Holst et al., 2025) e considera l’ineludibilità del principio human-in-the-loop. Il contributo consegna cinque prodotti teorico-metodologici – la formalizzazione del workflow in sette fasi, la classificazione R1/R2 delle fonti, la matrice di rischio epistemologico, la mappatura sulle voci PRISMA 2020 e il diagramma di flusso adattato – riutilizzabili anche indipendentemente dall’adozione integrale del workflow. L’ipotesi è accompagnata dall’esplicitazione di giudizi qualitativi di validità formulati a priori e come stime esperte, e non l’esito di una prova pilota o di una validazione della concordanza tra valutatori: la messa alla prova empirica del protocollo costituisce la principale linea di ricerca futura. Il contributo si colloca quindi come apporto alla metodologia della ricerca pedagogica, alla formazione alla ricerca e al dibattito sulla valutazione trasparente della produzione scientifica in PAED.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., & Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024). Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell’s methodologic expectations for Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews (MECCIR). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, Article e1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445
American Psychological Association. (2024). APA PsycInfo [Research database]. APA PsycNet. https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo
Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (Eds.). (2024). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
Pullin, A. S., Frampton, G. K., Livoreil, B., & Petrokofsky, G. (Eds.). (2022). Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management (Version 5.1). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. https://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors
Consensus NLP, Inc. (2024). Consensus [AI-powered academic search engine]. https://consensus.app
COPE Council. (2023). COPE position statement on AI tools in scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms
Culbert, J. H., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Haupka, N., Schmidt, M., Donner, P., & Mayr, P. (2025). Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 130, 2475–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3
Elsevier. (2024). Scopus AI (AI Discovery) [Generative AI research tool]. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/scopus-ai
Flemyng, E., Noel-Storr, A., Macura, B., Gartlehner, G., Thomas, J., Meerpohl, J. J., Jordan, Z., Minx, J., Eisele-Metzger, A., Hamel, C., Jemioło, P., Porritt, K., & Grainger, M. (2025). Position statement on artificial intelligence (AI) use in evidence synthesis across Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2025. Environmental Evidence, 14, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-025-00374-5
Glynn, A. (2024). Suspected undeclared use of artificial intelligence in the academic literature: An analysis of the Academ-AI dataset [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.15218
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gray, A. (2024). ChatGPT “contamination”: Estimating the prevalence of LLMs in the scholarly literature [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.16887
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2024). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.5, updated August 2024). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Holst, D., Moenck, K., Koch, J., Schmedemann, O., & Schüppstuhl, T. (2025). Transparent reporting of AI in systematic literature reviews: Development of the PRISMA-trAIce checklist. JMIR AI, 4, Article e80247. https://doi.org/10.2196/80247
Incorrect terminology in Table 2 [Correction]. (2019). JAMA, 322(20), 2026. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.18307
Institute of Education Sciences. (2024). Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) [Bibliographic database]. U.S. Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
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), Article eadt3813. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt3813
Kung, J. (2023). Elicit (product review). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada, 44(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29657
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Linardon, J., Jarman, H. K., McClure, Z., Anderson, C., Liu, C., & Messer, M. (2025). Influence of topic familiarity and prompt specificity on citation fabrication in mental health research using large language models: Experimental study. JMIR AI, 4, Article e80371. https://doi.org/10.2196/80371
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
McInnes, M. D. F., Moher, D., Thombs, B. D., McGrath, T. A., Bossuyt, P. M., & the PRISMA-DTA Group. (2018). Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA, 319(4), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Topaz, M., Roguin, N., Gupta, P., Zhang, Z., & Peltonen, L.-M. (2026). Fabricated citations: An audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers. The Lancet, 407, 1779–1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00603-3
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Categorie
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2026 Maurizio Gentile, Piergiuseppe Ellerani
TQuesto lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.
Formazione & insegnamento è distribuita con la seguente licenza: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Per ulteriori dettagli, si rimanda alle Politiche di archiviazione e ai Termini di Copyright e Licenza.
