J Korean Med Sci.  2024 Aug;39(33):e249. 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e249.

Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

• Kocak Z

• KMID: 2559229
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e249

Abstract

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While the responsible use of AI brings many innovations and benefits to science and humanity, its unethical use poses a serious threat to scientific integrity and literature. Even in the absence of malicious use, the Chatbot output itself, as a software application based on AI, carries the risk of containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations and plagiarism. Therefore, the use of complex AI algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency and accountability, requiring the development of new ethical rules to protect scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the development and writing of ethical codes cannot keep up with the pace of development and implementation of technology. The main purpose of this narrative review is to inform readers, authors, reviewers and editors about new approaches to publication ethics in the era of AI. It specifically focuses on tips on how to disclose the use of AI in your manuscript, how to avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, and current standards for retraction.

Keyword

Artificial Intelligence; Ethics in Publishing; Scientific Fraud; Scientific Integrity; Scientific Misconduct; Retraction of Publication

Reference

1. Turing AM. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind. 1950; 49(236):433–460.

2. Stone P, Brooks R, Brynjolfsson E, Calo R, Etzioni O, Hager G, et al. Artificial intelligence and life in 2030. One hundred year study on artificial intelligence: report of the 2015–2016 study panel, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Updated 2016. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://ai100.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj18871/files/media/file/ai100report10032016fnl_singles.pdf .

3. Singh J, Sillerud B, Singh A. Artificial intelligence, chatbots and ChatGPT in healthcare—narrative review of historical evolution, current application, and change management approach to increase adoption. J Med Artif Intell. 2023; 6:30.

4. Weizenbaum J. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: W.H. Freeman and Company;1976.

5. Digital Scholar. What is ChatGPT: the history of ChatGPT – Open AI. Updated 2023. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://digitalscholar.in/history-of-chatgpt/#the-history-of-chatgpt-itspredecessorshines .

6. Chen J, Sun J, Wang G. From unmanned systems to autonomous intelligent systems. Engineering (Beijing). 2022; 12:16–19.

7. Copeland BJ. Fact-checked by the Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. Artificial intelligence. Britannica. Updated 2024. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-artificial-intelligence .

8. Park CW, Seo SW, Kang N, Ko B, Choi BW, Park CM, et al. Artificial intelligence in health care: current applications and issues. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(42):e379. PMID: 33140591.

9. Kaebnick GE, Magnus DC, Kao A, Hosseini M, Resnik D, Dubljević V, et al. Editors’ statement on the responsible use of generative AI technologies in scholarly journal publishing. Am J Bioeth. 2024; 24(3):5–8. PMID: 38085888.

10. Chetwynd E. Ethical use of artificial intelligence for scientific writing: current trends. J Hum Lact. 2024; 40(2):211–215. PMID: 38482810.

11. Doskaliuk B, Zimba O. Beyond the keyboard: academic writing in the era of ChatGPT. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(26):e207. PMID: 37401498.

12. Koçak Z, Altay S. Balkan Medical Journal policy on the use of Chatbots in scientific publications. Balkan Med J. 2023; 40(3):149–150. PMID: 37067468.

13. Ali MJ, Djalilian A. Readership awareness series - Paper 4: Chatbots and ChatGPT - ethical considerations in scientific publications. Ocul Surf. 2023; 28:153–154. PMID: 37028488.

14. Ali MJ, Djalilian A. Readership awareness series - Paper 3: paper mills. Ocul Surf. 2023; 28:56–57. PMID: 36739967.

15. Hammad M. The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) programs on writing scientific research. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023; 51(3):459–460. PMID: 36637603.

16. BaHammam AS. Balancing innovation and integrity: the role of AI in research and scientific writing. Nat Sci Sleep. 2023; 15(15):1153–1156. PMID: 38170140.

17. Korkmaz S. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a revolutionary ally or an ethical dilemma? Balkan Med J. 2024; 41(2):87–88. PMID: 38269851.

18. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña JF, et al. Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts. WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Updated 2023. Accessed May 18, 2024. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106 .

19. Limongi R. The use of artificial intelligence in scientific research with integrity and ethics. Future Stud Res J. 2024; 16(1):e845.

20. Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 2023; 379(6630):313. PMID: 36701446.

21. Flanagin A, Kendall-Taylor J, Bibbins-Domingo K. Guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors on use of AI, language models, and chatbots. JAMA. 2023; 330(8):702–703. PMID: 37498593.

22. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature. 2023; 613(7945):612. PMID: 36694020.

23. Hosseini M, Resnik DB, Holmes K. The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Res Ethics Rev. 2023; 19(4):449–465.

24. Jenkins R, Lin P. AI-assisted authorship: how to assign credit in synthetic scholarship (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4342909). Updated 2023. Accessed May 14, 2024. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4342909.

25. Hughes-Castleberry K. From cats to chatbots: how non-humans are authoring scientific papers. Discover Magazine. Updated 2023. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/from-cats-to-chatbots-how-non-humans-are-authoring-scientific-papers .

26. Stokel-Walker C. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature. 2023; 613(7945):620–621. PMID: 36653617.

27. Katz DS, Chue Hong NP, Clark T, Muench A, Stall S, Bouquin D, et al. Recognizing the value of software: a software citation guide. F1000 Res. 2020; 9:1257.

28. McAdoo T. How to cite ChatGPT. APA Style Blog. Updated 2024. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt .

29. Berdejo-Espinola V, Amano T. AI tools can improve equity in science. Science. 2023; 379(6636):991.

30. Parkinson A, Wykes T. The anxiety of the lone editor: fraud, paper mills and the protection of the scientific record. J Ment Health. 2023; 32(5):865–868. PMID: 37697484.

31. Hosseini M, Resnik DB. Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct. Res Ethics Rev. 2024; 17470161241254052.

32. Jones N. How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature. 2024; 626(8000):697–698. PMID: 38347210.

33. Homolak J. Exploring the adoption of ChatGPT in academic publishing: insights and lessons for scientific writing. Croat Med J. 2023; 64(3):205–207. PMID: 37391919.

34. Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo Y, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023; 6(1):75. PMID: 37100871.

35. Elkhatat AM, Khaled Elsaid K, Almeer S. Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. Int J Educ Integrity. 2023; 19(1):17.

36. Habibzadeh F. GPTZero performance in identifying artificial intelligence-generated medical texts: a preliminary study. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(38):e319. PMID: 37750374.

37. Liverpool L. AI intensifies fight against ‘paper mills’ that churn out fake research. Nature. 2023; 618(7964):222–223. PMID: 37258739.

38. Elali FR, Rachid LN. AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community. Patterns (N Y). 2023; 4(3):100706. PMID: 36960451.

39. Eaton SE, Soulière M. Artificial intelligence (AI) and fake papers. Updated 2023. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/artificial-intelligence-fake-paper .

40. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Updated editorial guidance for quality and reliability of research output. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 33(35):e247. PMID: 30140192.

41. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):e68397. PMID: 23861902.

42. Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS, Fernández E, Pérez-Ríos M. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2022; 379:e071517. PMID: 36442874.

43. Freijedo-Farinas F, Ruano-Ravina A, Perez-Rios M, Ross JS, Candal-Pedreira C. Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterizations and trends in the last 20 years. Scientometrics. 2024; 129(5):2867–2882.

44. Hwang SY, Yon DK, Lee SW, Kim MS, Kim JY, Smith L, et al. Causes for retraction in the biomedical literature: a systematic review of studies of retraction notices. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(41):e333. PMID: 37873630.

45. Retraction Watch. Plague of anomalies in conference proceedings hint at ‘systemic issues.’. Updated 2023. Accessed May 16, 2024. https://retractionwatch.com/2023/06/15/plague-of-anomalies-in-conference-proceedings-hint-at-systemic-issues .

46. Voung QH, La LV, H\xe1\xbb\x93 MT, Vuong TT, Ho MT. Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Sci Ed. 2020; 7(1):34–44.

47. Van Noorden R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record. Nature. 2023; 624(7992):479–481. PMID: 38087103.

48. Kocyigit BF, Akyol A. Analysis of retracted publications in the biomedical literature from Turkey. J Korean Med Sci. 2022; 37(18):e142. PMID: 35535370.

49. Gupta L, Tariq J, Yessirkepov M, Zimba O, Misra DP, Agarwal V, et al. Plagiarism in non-anglophone countries: a cross-sectional survey of researchers and journal editors. J Korean Med Sci. 2021; 36(39):e247. PMID: 34636502.

50. COPE Council. COPE retraction guidelines — English. Updated 2019. Accessed 20 May, 2024. DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.

51. Teixeira da Silva JA. Assessing the ethics of stings, including from the prism of guidelines by ethics-promoting organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE). Publ Res Q. 2021; 37(1):90–98.

52. Fanelli D. Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors. Nature. 2016; 531(7595):415. PMID: 27008933.

53. Kasani PH, Cho KH, Jang JW, Yun CH. Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics. Sci Ed. 2024; 11(1):12–25.

54. Zhaksylyk A, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Kocyigit BF. Research integrity: where we are and where we are heading. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(47):e405. PMID: 38050915.