You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Only users who are logged in using ORCID can make a change or add a contribution. Please login here.

Back

Edit a theme

We invite you to share your knowledge and write about a theme which you find relevant, interesting or controversial. You can share your own expertise, present your new initiative, write a commentary about one of the resources hosted on The Embassy, or simply describe a topic that you think should be shared with the research community.

Before you submit, please be aware of our community guidelines.

Theme

AI use is becoming part of many processes, as well as improving the writing of scientific publications. AI tools can be used for basic technical assistance, linguistic enhancement, substantial content involvement, or even extensive content creation (2). However, a good scientific practice includes accountability, objectivity, reproducibility, transparency, integrity, honesty (3).

The research should be original, even though some AI tool is utilised. It seems that the scientific journals have their own policies on AI-generated content, and the authors are recommended to review those before attempting to use AI for their manuscript. The level of AI use should be thought through by the authors, and when utilised, the ethical rigor warrants acknowledgment of such an action in the manuscript (4). Nondisclosure of AI use can be classified as misconduct in some circumstances (5).

Another issue is confidentiality, as some AI tools do not ensure that the content will not be taken up (5).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) laid out the recommendations for the use of AI by authors (5):

·       “The journals should require authors to disclose the use of AI-assisted technologies;

·       Level of AI use should be described;

·       Specific AI tools should not be listed as authors;

·       Authors should carefully review and edit the AI-generated content;

·      Authors should be able to claim that there is no plagiarism in their work.”

'''Use of AI tools for grammar and linguistic refinement'''

A doctoral student uses AI tools for language polishing and grammar correction while keeping full authorship responsibility for the scientific content. Non-native English-speaking researchers utilize AI-assisted editing to enhance clarity and readability before journal submission. Researchers use AI tools to structure abstracts and improve coherence without creating original scientific data or conclusions.

'''Transparent disclosure of AI assistance'''

Authors include an AI disclosure statement in the acknowledgments section that explains the use of AI for linguistic editing. A research team specifies the level and purpose of AI use (such as language refinement or summarization) in accordance with journal policies. Manuscripts submitted to journals following ICMJE recommendations explicitly disclose AI-assisted technologies used during writing.

'''Ethical debates on authorship and responsibility'''

Discussions in academic publishing about whether AI-generated text challenges traditional ideas of authorship and intellectual responsibility. Editorial debates focus on the responsibility of human authors for the accuracy and originality of AI-assisted content. Cases where journals clarified that AI tools cannot be listed as authors due to a lack of accountability and scientific responsibility.

'''Institutional recommendations on responsible AI use in doctoral research'''

Universities issuing guidelines for ethical AI use in thesis writing and doctoral research. Doctoral programs promoting supervised and transparent AI assistance for academic writing. Research institutions developing policies that mandate critical human oversight of AI-supported academic content.

'''Journal policies requiring acknowledgment of AI-assisted technologies'''

Major publishers, such as Elsevier and Springer Nature, are implementing mandatory AI disclosure policies for manuscript submissions. Editorial guidelines specify that AI can assist in writing but cannot replace human intellectual contribution. Journal instructions require authors to verify the originality and absence of plagiarism in manuscripts that utilize AI assistances.

Related guidelines

Cochrane – Setting the standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis (6)

Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence have published a joint position statement on the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in evidence synthesis. Link: https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/news/setting-standards-responsible-ai-use-evidence-synthesis

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) – AI and Publication Ethics (7)

COPE stresses transparency, accountability, and ethical oversight in the use of AI tools in scholarly writing. It warns about the risks of undisclosed AI usage, such as potential misconduct, plagiarism, and lack of author responsibility. Link:  https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/emerging-ai-dilemmas-scholarly-publishing

EQUATOR Network – Reporting and Research Transparency Standards (8) (9)

The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network promotes transparency, completeness, and integrity in research reporting, including responsible disclosure of any AI-assisted methodologies in manuscript preparation. This supports reproducibility and scientific credibility. The CLAIM guideline offers a standardized reporting framework for artificial intelligence studies in medical imaging, emphasizing transparency, reproducibility, and methodological clarity. It encourages responsible AI use by requiring detailed reporting of data, models, validation, and analytical processes in scientific manuscripts. Links: https://www.equator-network.org/ , https://pubs.rsna.org/page/ai/claim

ICMJE Recommendations on the Use of AI in Scientific Publishing (5) (10) (11)

The ICMJE states that AI-assisted technologies must be transparently disclosed and cannot be listed as authors, as they do not meet authorship criteria or accountability standards. Human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of AI-assisted content. Link: https://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence

UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (12)

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) offers a global ethical framework for responsible AI use, highlighting transparency, human oversight, accountability, and the protection of research integrity. These principles are directly relevant to AI-assisted academic writing and research practices. Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics

WAME Recommendations on AI and Chatbots in Scholarly Publications (13)

WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) clearly states that AI tools cannot qualify as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the content or ensure scientific integrity. The organization recommends explicit disclosure and careful human review of all AI-assisted text. Link: https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106

References:

1)      Oxford English Dictionary. Artificial intelligence (n.) [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2023 Dec. Available from: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/7359280480</nowiki>

2)      Resnik DB, Hosseini M. Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? Accountability in Research. 2025 Mar 24;1–13. doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949

3)      How to disclose AI tools in academic writing (with templates). Available from: <nowiki>https://instatext.io/how-to-disclose-ai-tools-in-academic-writing-with-templates/</nowiki>

4)      BaHammam A. The Transparency Paradox: Why Researchers Avoid Disclosing AI Assistance in Scientific Writing. NSS. 2025 Oct;Volume 17:2569–74. doi:10.2147/NSS.S568375

5)      Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing [Internet]. Available from: <nowiki>https://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/</nowiki>

6)      Setting the standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis [Internet]. Cochrane. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/news/setting-standards-responsible-ai-use-evidence-synthesis</nowiki>

7)      AI and Publication Ethics [Internet]. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Available from: <nowiki>https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/ai-and-publication-ethics</nowiki>

8)      Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research [Internet]. EQUATOR Network. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.equator-network.org/</nowiki>

9)      Tejani AS, Klontzas ME, Gatti AA, Mongan JT, Moy L, Park SH, et al. Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): 2024 Update. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. 2024 Jul 1;6(4):e240300. doi:10.1148/ryai.240300

10)  Zielinski C. Why artificial intelligence is not an author. ESE. 2025 Feb 14;51:e142904. doi:10.3897/ese.2025.e142904

11)  Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023 Feb 25;27(1):75. doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2

12)  Ethics of Artificial Intelligence [Internet]. The UNESCO Courier. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics</nowiki>

13)  Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña Jr JF, et al. Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Colomb Med. 2023 Dec 1;54(3):e1015868. doi:10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868

Selma Arapovic Dzakula and Vinko Bubic contributed to this theme.

Related To

Edit Theme: Theme:9f272d22-980d-4327-b68a-34f5a74480f7

Edit a theme