- A standard-provenance and version log.
- An evidenced scope and endorsement decision.
- An accurate AI-use and human-control statement.
Separate three claims
A published paper can offer a useful proposal while not being an official extension of another standard. A familiar name, citation count or checklist appearance does not establish the original organization’s endorsement.
Specify whether you mean a published proposal, an endorsed extension or a journal requirement. Each label needs different evidence.
The current PRISMA-trAIce case
The letter PRISMA-trAIce: A Name Without Endorsement, published 18 August 2026, objects to presenting the proposal as an endorsed PRISMA checklist. This site does not label it an officially endorsed extension.
That objection does not establish that all AI-reporting suggestions are useless or all tools prohibited. Check PRISMA’s official extension list and organizational statements when using the guidance.
A five-step verification workflow
Find the title, DOI and original text. Identify document type, authors, date and corrections. Examine the claimed development and consensus process. Compare the official organization’s list and responses. Record actual journal or institutional requirements separately.
Report conflicting evidence with dates and precise claims. Absence from a list does not disprove every scientific contribution, but an official-endorsement label requires positive evidence.
Practical AI reporting
Without relying on an uncertain label, describe the tool’s actual role in search, screening, extraction, code or writing. Record tool/version, instructions and inputs, human controls and observed failures as appropriate.
Use valid base reporting guidance and the outlet’s policy. A tool cannot be an accountable author; researchers remain responsible for sources, privacy and results.
Keep a standard-selection log
Store name, organization, version, scope, source link, endorsement type, check date and applicability rationale. Date corrections if status changes.
Do not combine unrelated checklists to imply quality. Reporting should connect to actual design and decisions; an unsupported standards label does not establish scientific authority.
Completed teaching worksheet
This is a hypothetical teaching case, not observed data, an actual review or a publication acceptance. Numbers illustrate decisions.
| Decision or record | Teaching example | Your project action |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | “Official extension” in fictional publicity | Extract the exact claim. |
| Originals | Proposal and 18 August 2026 letter | Record type and dates. |
| Endorsement | Documented objection to official label | Consult the original organization. |
| Use | Tool disclosure and human checks | Report transparently without a false label. |
| Decision | Do not call it officially endorsed | Keep the reason and correction date. |
Deliverables and completion checks
- A standard-provenance and version log.
- An evidenced scope and endorsement decision.
- An accurate AI-use and human-control statement.
Version and scope references: Moher et al. (2026) — PRISMA-trAIce: A Name Without Endorsement · PRISMA — Official extensions
Sources and further reading
Official sources for verification and further reading
- Moher et al. (2026) — PRISMA-trAIce: A Name Without Endorsement Source verification: 2026-10-06
- PRISMA — Official extensions Source verification: 2026-10-06
- EQUATOR Network — Reporting guidelines