Abstract
Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is at the forefront of today’s technological revolution, enhancing efficiency in many organisations and sectors. However, in some research environments, its adoption is tempered by the risks AI poses to data protection, ethics, and research integrity. For research funding organisations (RFOs), although there is interest in the application of AI to boost productivity, there is also uncertainty around AI’s utility and its safe integration into organisational systems and processes. The scoping review explored: ‘What does the evidence say about the current and emerging use of AI?’; ‘What are the potential benefits of AI for RFOs?’ and ‘What are the considerations and risks of AI for RFOs?’
Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study, language, or field limits. Due to the rapidly evolving AI field, searches were limited to the last three years (2022-2024). Four databases were searched for academic and grey literature in February 2024 (including 13 funding and professional research organisation websites). A classification framework captured the utility and potential, and considerations and risks of AI for RFOs.
Results 122 eligible articles revealed that current and emerging AI solutions could potentially benefit RFOs by enhancing data processes, administration, research insights, operational management, and strategic decision-making. These solutions ranged from AI algorithms to data management platforms, frameworks, guidelines, and business models. However, several considerations and risks need to be addressed before RFOs can successfully integrate AI (e.g., improving data quality, regulating ethical use, data science training).
Conclusion While RFOs could potentially benefit from a breadth of AI-driven solutions to improve operations, decision-making and data management, there is a need to assess organisational ‘AI readiness’. Although technological advances could be the solution there is a need to address AI accountability, governance and ethics, address societal impact, and the risks to the research funding landscape.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was internally funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, based at the University of Southampton. The views and opinions expressed in the discussion are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The NIHR had no role in the design, collection or conduct of this study, nor the decision to publish or the preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. They are also available from the OSF https://osf.io/d8bfn/