Introduction

Recent years have witnessed a rapid convergence of medical publishing and artificial intelligence (AI) [1,2]. With the advent of accessible large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in late 2022, the threshold for utilizing generative text technologies has effectively vanished [3]. Although these tools hold significant potential for alleviating the burden of manuscript drafting and polishing [4,5], their integration inevitably raises substantial concerns regarding research integrity and ethical liability [6].

Despite their utility in refining academic prose, LLMs have come under scrutiny for generating hallucinations and counterfeit references, thereby compromising the reliability of scientific literature [7]. The vulnerability of the publishing ecosystem was starkly illustrated by recent incidents in which AI models were formally recognized as coauthors, a practice that drew sharp criticism [8-10]. These events served as a tipping point, prompting immediate and decisive action from medical journals to redefine the boundaries of accountability and authorship.

There is a growing consensus that while AI functions as a robust mechanism for scholarly assistance, its application requires rigorous oversight to maintain the epistemic validity of medical science [11,12]. In response, the academic publishing community has mobilized to establish governance frameworks capable of addressing these novel legal and ethical complexities [13,14]. Central to these emerging protocols are the dual imperatives of absolute transparency and protection of scientific rigor [15,16]. Against this backdrop, this narrative review offers a structured analysis of the ethical implications of AI in medical authorship. The article follows a formal IMRaD structure—comprising Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion—to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of this shifting paradigm.

As this study relied exclusively on publicly available literature, Institutional Review Board approval was not required.

Methods

To delineate the ethical landscape of AI-assisted medical writing, a comprehensive narrative review was conducted. We performed a targeted literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar, covering the period from inception through November 2025, using search terms including “AI writing medical research ethics,” “AI in scientific publishing guidelines,” and “ChatGPT authorship medical journals.” The inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed original research, editorial perspectives, and consensus statements addressing the integration of generative AI in manuscript preparation. The analysis prioritized regulatory frameworks established by major governance bodies, specifically the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) [17], and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Additionally, we examined the submission protocols of high-impact journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Nature, Science, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) to identify evolving standards. Information from these sources was thematically synthesized into six core ethical domains: authorship accountability, transparency, plagiarism/originality, factual accuracy, algorithmic bias, and data confidentiality.

Results

We identified key ethical dimensions requiring vigilance in AI-assisted scholarship, particularly concerning authorship and accountability. A review of global guidelines reveals a strict prohibition against listing generative AI as a coauthor [11,18] (Table 1). This restriction is grounded in the understanding that AI lacks the capacity for accountability—a core requirement for authorship [19,20]. As AI cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or integrity of a study, it fails to meet the established criteria for academic credit. The 2023 ICMJE guidelines reinforce this, stipulating that AI contributions must be acknowledged within the text but never included in the byline [11]. Therefore, human authors must retain full ownership of the scientific output. Even when AI assists in text generation, the human researcher acts as the final guarantor of the work’s quality, bias control, and adherence to ethical norms [21,22]. In practice, this requires AI to be used solely as a drafting aid, subject to meticulous human review to ensure that scientific validity is not compromised by automated content generation [14,15].

Transparency and disclosure represent the bedrock of trust in the evolving landscape of AI-assisted scholarship [23,24]. A robust consensus has been crystallized within the academic community: the use of generative AI must be explicitly declared [25]. Leading publishers and research institutions now mandate that any application of these tools—ranging from initial drafting to linguistic refinement—be formally documented within the Methods, Acknowledgments, or a designated disclosure section [26-28]. The primary objective of these protocols is to provide editors and peer reviewers with the context necessary to rigorously assess the manuscript’s integrity. Noncompliance with these disclosure norms is increasingly categorized as a serious ethical violation, carrying potential repercussions ranging from editorial rejection to post-publication retraction. For example, the American College of Gastroenterology has stipulated that failure to attest to AI use constitutes a breach of publication ethics [24]. Similarly, major high-impact journals including Nature, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, and Science have codified policies in 2023–2024 requiring granular reporting; authors are often expected to specify the software version, prompts employed, and precise sections of text affected [29-31]. This level of transparency ensures that the distinction between human intellectual contribution and algorithmic output remains unambiguous. Although specific formatting requirements may vary across journals, the underlying ethical imperative is uniform: obscuring AI involvement is deceptive [32,33]. By adhering to open disclosure, authors uphold the principle that AI is a tool to be acknowledged rather than a silent collaborator to be concealed.

The domain of plagiarism and originality presents a complex ethical frontier in the era of AI-augmented authorship. Plagiarism—defined as the uncredited appropriation of another’s intellectual work—remains a cardinal violation of research integrity [34,35]. Because LLMs operate by synthesizing probabilistic patterns from massive training corpora of existing literature, there is a tangible risk that they may inadvertently reproduce verbatim phrases or distinctive syntactic structures from prior publications [14,36]. Consequently, researchers utilizing these tools must exercise extreme vigilance to ensure that algorithmic outputs do not constitute derivative works lacking proper attribution. Routine editorial screening now involves sophisticated plagiarism detection software; thus, AI-generated text that closely mirrors published sources is likely to trigger similarity flags [37-39]. Furthermore, the absence of genuine semantic understanding in AI means it may regurgitate common scientific descriptions that encroach upon plagiarism if not rigorously cited. Beyond textual similarity, significant ambiguities persist regarding intellectual property (IP) rights [15].

The terms of service for various AI platforms differ markedly—some assigning ownership to the user only under specific payment tiers (Midjourney) [40], while others grant ownership but retain complex rights over generated content. For instance, both OpenAI [41] and Google [42] explicitly state that while users own their output, the models 'may generate the same or similar content for others,' thereby creating potential legal disputes over the provenance and exclusivity of the text.

There is also a latent risk of copyright laundering, wherein an AI incorporates protected material from its training data into the output without citation [43]. Ethically, the burden of verification rests entirely with the human author, who must guarantee that the manuscript is original. To mitigate these risks, AI should be employed strictly as a scaffolding tool for drafting, with the final manuscript subjected to rigorous human editing and citation verification to uphold the standards of academic honesty [44,45].

A paramount ethical challenge in AI-assisted writing lies in the domain of accuracy and verifiability [46-48]. Generative models have an inherent limitation often termed hallucination or confabulation, wherein the system synthesizes rhetorically persuasive but factually spurious content [49,50]. Within the rigorous context of medical research, this propensity poses a severe risk; data interpretations, clinical claims, or statistical figures generated by AI may be fundamentally erroneous despite their authoritative tone. Of particular concern is the documented phenomenon of citation hallucination, where models invent nonexistent bibliographic references or misattribute findings to unrelated sources [51]. This behavior threatens the epistemic integrity of the scientific record, as peer review and reproducibility depend entirely on the ability to trace assertions back to primary evidence. The propagation of such illusory citations not only wastes the time of readers and editors but also creates a false lineage of knowledge. Consequently, the burden of verification falls unequivocally on the human investigator. It is incumbent upon authors to rigorously cross-reference every AI-generated claim and citation against established databases (e.g., PubMed/MEDLINE) to confirm their existence and relevance [13,52]. Treating AI outputs with skepticism is a nonnegotiable standard; failure to perform due diligence in verifying algorithmic content may be construed as professional negligence or scientific misconduct, as it compromises the veracity of the published work [53,54].

The issue of bias and fairness is a critical ethical consideration. LLMs are trained on massive datasets that are not manually curated; as a result, they tend to absorb and reproduce the historical prejudices and structural imbalances present in human text [55]. Without careful human supervision, there is a risk that these tools will repeat or even amplify these inequities. In medical writing, this problem often manifests as a lack of inclusive terminology or a narrow focus on research topics relevant only to certain populations [56]. There is also the risk of citation bias, whereby AI suggests references primarily from prominent Western journals because they appear most frequently in its training data, thereby overlooking important work from other regions [57,58]. While some argue that AI could make language more neutral, experts warn that these models contain hidden biases that may simply replace one form of discrimination with another [59]. Therefore, authors must act as a filter. It is the responsibility of the researcher to carefully edit any AI-generated text to ensure it meets the standards of equity and objectivity expected in medicine (Table 2).

The preservation of privacy and confidentiality stands as a paramount obligation in the era of algorithmic writing. Medical scholarship frequently involves handling sensitive datasets, including protected health information and proprietary clinical trial results. A critical ethical hazard arises when such data is submitted to generative AI systems, which predominantly operate on external, third-party cloud infrastructure [60]. Because user inputs are often retained to retrain model architectures, there is a tangible risk that confidential information could be absorbed and subsequently exposed [61]. Specifically, the input of identifiable patient details into commercial AI platforms may constitute a direct violation of privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the United States [62]. Furthermore, the transmission of unpublished manuscripts—potentially containing novel findings or confidential peer review data—to unsecured AI servers jeopardizes data sovereignty. In response to these concerns, editorial bodies have implemented strict prohibitions; for example, JAMA explicitly prohibits peer reviewers from using AI to process submissions, citing breach of confidentiality as a disqualifying factor [20]. Consequently, researchers must abandon the assumption that online tools are secure by default. Ethical practice dictates that AI utilization be strictly compartmentalized: it may be applied to nonsensitive structural editing but must be rigorously excluded from processing raw patient data or IP [63]. Where AI is deemed necessary for sensitive tasks, it should be restricted to local, offline environments that guarantee data isolation [64,65]. Ultimately, the efficiency conferred by AI cannot supersede the inviolable duty to protect patient privacy and research confidentiality; compliance with institutional data protection standards remains nonnegotiable.

The integration of AI into scientific writing presents a classic dual-use dilemma: it offers substantial efficiency gains that must be carefully balanced against ethical vulnerabilities [66,67]. The arguments for beneficence are strong, particularly in terms of linguistic equity; AI tools can level the playing field for researchers facing language barriers, thereby enhancing the diversity of the scientific record [68]. Moreover, by managing the mechanical aspects of writing, AI enables researchers to focus on substantive inquiry. Recognizing these advantages, the field is shifting away from prohibition—which risks creating a shadow economy of unregulated use—toward a model of transparency and oversight [69]. The results of this review highlight that the integrity of the manuscript depends on the primacy of the human author. AI should be conceptualized as a scaffold for writing not an architect of ideas. Ethical practice dictates that authors must remain the sole originators of the scientific narrative, using AI only to refine expression. One proposed framework asserts that responsible use necessitates comprehensive human verification of all AI-generated suggestions to ensure the work remains a genuine scholarly effort [70]. Ultimately, the distinction between ethical support and academic misconduct lies in the depth of human engagement: AI can assist in the process, but it cannot be allowed to supplant the intellectual labor of research.

Discussion

Collectively, these findings clearly show that the integration of AI into medical scholarship necessitates a rigorous ethical infrastructure. The dominant paradigm emerging from the literature is one of human stewardship: while AI may serve in an auxiliary capacity to refine the mechanics of prose, the preservation of scientific integrity remains the exclusive domain of the human investigator. A strong consensus has crystallized around several inviolable tenets, most notably the absolute disqualification of AI from authorship eligibility [71]. By uniformly proscribing the listing of algorithms as coauthors, the scientific community reinforces the principle that authorship is not merely a function of text generation but of intellectual responsibility. This distinction is critical; it ensures that the locus of accountability—for factual accuracy, ethical compliance, and originality—resides with a moral agent capable of answering for the work [72,73]. Ultimately, this framework defends the human element of research, positioning AI as a sophisticated instrument subject to the unwavering control and scrutiny of the author.

A second nonnegotiable standard is transparency. Ethical practice requires that the utilization of AI tools be fully visible to the reader [71]. This act of disclosure is not a trivial formality but a crucial safeguard for the validity of the scientific record. By revealing which sections were generated or refined by AI, authors enable the audience to calibrate their trust and scrutinize the content for potential machine-generated inaccuracies. Transparency also serves a broader community function: it allows the field to identify patterns of error—such as specific types of hallucinations—that may be linked to particular algorithms [23,74-76]. The current trend toward requiring comprehensive disclosure (listing model architecture, version numbers, and specific prompts) is vital for ensuring the reproducibility of the drafting process. This level of detail transforms the black box of AI writing into a transparent methodology. By treating AI usage as a form of methodological disclosure—comparable to reporting statistical software or laboratory reagents—researchers uphold the long-standing tradition of openness that underpins credible science.

The discussion also underscores the critical role of education and cultural norms in mitigating ethical risks. Although formal regulations establish a necessary scaffold, they are insufficient to ensure ethical behavior universally. This insufficiency is exemplified by the failure of AI-detection tools [77,78]. Technological efforts to discern AI-generated text remain unreliable, frequently producing false positives in which authentic human writing is erroneously flagged [78]. As detection becomes increasingly impractical, the scientific community must abandon the pursuit of perfect policing in favor of fostering ethical stewardship. Experts argue that the essence of authorship lies in intellectual ownership rather than text generation [72,79]. Thus, provided the human author retains full control over the analysis and vouches for its accuracy, AI functions as a permissible auxiliary tool. The challenge is to ensure AI is treated as an aid and not as a scientist. To achieve this, mentorship and institutional training must address the limitations of generative models, ensuring that researchers understand the distinction between augmentation and automation [80,81]. By embedding these values into academic training, AI can be normalized as a method for enhancing productivity without compromising standards. Ultimately, AI offers operational speed, but it can never replace the ethical and critical burden of the human investigator.

It is also evident that total bans represent an ineffective solution. Early attempts by journals such as Science to proscribe AI-generated text entirely faced criticism for being operationally unenforceable [9,68,82]. Scholars argue that such rigidity inadvertently encourages opaque, undisclosed usage, thereby making the influence of the technology difficult to monitor [68,69]. A superior alternative is the adoption of pragmatic governance. This approach is exemplified by the recent Delphi recommendations in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, which emphasize the development of ethical guardrails and constructive guidelines rather than strict prohibition [83]. The group achieved consensus on mandating transparency, precluding AI authorship, and creating operational checklists for editors. This represents a strategic shift from interdiction to regulation, aiming to integrate AI into the scientific process under strict oversight. By acknowledging the ubiquity of these tools, this framework focuses on managing risks rather than resisting adoption. Crucially, it promotes fairness by establishing a uniform set of rules, preventing disparities between transparent users and those who might employ AI covertly. In the long term, such well-defined guidelines will likely elevate the ethical stigma of undisclosed AI use to the level of serious misconduct. Ultimately, passing off algorithmic text as human work may come to be viewed with the same gravity as data falsification.

Practical implementation is the final, critical step in the ethical adoption of AI. Based on a synthesis of emerging evidence and current editorial guidelines, we propose five concrete pillars for medical researchers. (1) Task segmentation: deploy AI strictly for mechanical improvements (e.g., grammar and formatting) while retaining human control over scientific interpretation and result synthesis to mitigate error. (2) Rigorous validation: treat all AI-generated content as a draft requiring skepticism; manual verification of statistics and references is mandatory. (3) Archival transparency: maintain a record of the specific prompts used. This practice supports reproducibility and serves as evidence of authorship if challenged; some guidelines even recommend submitting these logs. (4) Data sovereignty: ensure no protected health information is transmitted to unsecured servers; anonymization is a prerequisite for use. (5) Methodological citation: acknowledge AI appropriately as a software tool. Current scholarship rejects AI authorship, advocating instead for technical citation (e.g., ChatGPT-5 used for editing) within the methods section or references [17,68,84]. By adhering to these protocols, the research community can harness the speed and clarity offered by AI technologies while simultaneously reinforcing the ethical rigor that defines medical science (Fig. 1).

Conclusions

AI technology represents a permanent evolution in medical writing, yet its use is contingent upon strict ethical compliance. This review underscores that maintaining the trustworthiness of scientific publishing requires authors to treat AI as a transparent, assistive tool rather than as an intellectual proxy. The ethical imperative is twofold: leveraging AI to improve clarity and efficiency while rigorously safeguarding accuracy, confidentiality, and originality through human verification. As technology advances, the focus must shift toward educational initiatives that normalize responsible use and updated governance frameworks. Ultimately, the partnership between human expertise and AI can benefit science, but only if moral agency and final liability for the work remain exclusively with the human investigator.

Article information

Conflicts of interest

Hyunyong Hwang is an associate editor of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Funding

None.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: SY, HH. Data curation: SY, HH. Formal analysis: SY, HH. Investigation: SY, HH. Methodology: SY, HH. Project administration: HH. Resources: SY, HH. Supervision: HH. Visualization: HH. Writing-original draft: SY. Writing-review & editing: HH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Fig. 1.

A framework for the ethical integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical manuscript development and reporting. This diagram outlines five operational pillars intended to guide medical researchers in the responsible use of AI tools throughout the writing and publication processes. The framework highlights the necessity of maintaining human intellectual control over scientific interpretation while allowing AI to support mechanical aspects of drafting. It requires rigorous manual verification of all AI-generated content as provisional material, mandates archival transparency of prompts to support reproducibility, safeguards patient information through anonymization before use, and complies with current standards stipulating that AI be cited as a methodological tool rather than listed as an author. PHI, protected health information.

References

• 1. Kayaalp ME, Gultekin O, Akcaalan S, Kahraman HC, Topcu HN, Kavrul Kayaalp G. Artificial intelligence in medical and biological research: promise and perils of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in advancing healthcare. Turk J Biol 2025;49:585–99.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 2. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel) 2023;11:887.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 3. Arzilli G, Di Maggio E, De Angelis L, Baglivo F, Savoia E, Privitera GP, et al. A surge of AI-driven publications: the impact on health professionals and potential mitigating solutions. Front Public Health 2025;13:1680630.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 4. Bhargava DC, Jadav D, Meshram VP, Kanchan T. ChatGPT in medical research: challenging time ahead. Med Leg J 2023;91:223–5.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 5. Giglio AD, Costa MU. The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native English speakers. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2023;69:e20230560.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 6. Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Buadze A, Bhugra D, Smith A. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. Lancet Digit Health 2023;5:e105–6.ArticlePubMed
• 7. Berk H. Beware of artificial Intelligence hallucinations or should we call confabulation? Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2024;58:1–3.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 8. Stokel-Walker C. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature 2023;613:620–1.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 9. Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science 2023;379:313.ArticlePubMed
• 10. Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, Sillos C, De Leon L, Elepano C, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health 2023;2:e0000198.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 11. Yoo JH. Defining the boundaries of AI use in scientific writing: a comparative review of editorial policies. J Korean Med Sci 2025;40:e187.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 12. Helmy M, Jin L, Alhossary A, Mansour T, Pellagrina D, Selvarajoo K. Ten simple rules for optimal and careful use of generative AI in science. PLoS Comput Biol 2025;21:e1013588.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 13. Leung TI, de Azevedo Cardoso T, Mavragani A, Eysenbach G. Best practices for using AI tools as an author, peer reviewer, or editor. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e51584.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 14. Perkins M, Roe J. Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: a ChatGPT supported thematic analysis. F1000Res 2023;12:1398.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 15. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (revised in January 2024): a Korean translation. Ewha Med J 2024;47:e48.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 16. Koul PA. Disclosing use of artificial intelligence: promoting transparency in publishing. Lung India 2023;40:401–3.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 17. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapena JF, et al. Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Colomb Med (Cali) 2023;54:e1015868.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 18. Ganjavi C, Eppler MB, Pekcan A, Biedermann B, Abreu A, Collins GS, et al. Publishers' and journals' instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis. BMJ 2024;384:e077192.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 19. Blau W, Cerf VG, Enriquez J, Francisco JS, Gasser U, Gray ML, et al. Protecting scientific integrity in an age of generative AI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2024;121:e2407886121.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 20. Perlis RH, Christakis DA, Bressler NM, Ongur D, Kendall-Taylor J, Flanagin A, et al. Artificial intelligence in peer review. JAMA 2025;334.Article
• 21. Harrer S. Attention is not all you need: the complicated case of ethically using large language models in healthcare and medicine. EBioMedicine 2023;90:104512.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 22. Gordijn B, Have HT. ChatGPT: evolution or revolution? Med Health Care Philos 2023;26:1–2.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 23. BaHammam AS. The Transparency paradox: why researchers avoid disclosing AI assistance in scientific writing. Nat Sci Sleep 2025;17:2569–74.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 24. Yousaf MN. Practical considerations and ethical implications of using artificial intelligence in writing scientific manuscripts. ACG Case Rep J 2025;12:e01629.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 25. Resnik DB, Hosseini M. Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: when should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? Account Res 2025;1-13.Article
• 26. Mondal H. Summary guidelines on the use of AI in manuscript preparation. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2025;35:603–4.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 27. O'Brien C, Thayani Z, Smith T, Tran AV, Crotty P, Young A, et al. Full title: evaluating AI guidelines in leading family medicine journals: a cross-sectional study. BMC Prim Care 2025;26:368.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 28. Schrager S, Seehusen DA, Sexton S, Richardson C, Neher J, Pimlott C, et al. Use of AI in family medicine publications: a joint editorial from journal editors. J Am Board Fam Med 2025;38:4–8.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 29. Flanagin A, Pirracchio R, Khera R, Berkwits M, Hswen Y, Bibbins-Domingo K. Reporting use of AI in research and scholarly publication: JAMA network guidance. JAMA 2024;331:1096–8.ArticlePubMed
• 30. Huo B, Collins G, Chartash D, Thirunavukarasu A, Flanagin A, Iorio A, et al. Reporting guideline for chatbot health advice studies: the CHART statement. Artif Intell Med 2025;168:103222.PubMed
• 31. Luo X, Tham YC, Giuffre M, Ranisch R, Daher M, Lam K, et al. Reporting guideline for the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in medical research: the GAMER statement. BMJ Evid Based Med 2025;30:390–400.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 32. Tang BL. Undeclared AI-assisted academic writing as a form of research misconduct. Sci Ed 2025;48.Article
• 33. Noti-Victor J. Regulating hidden AI authorship. Va Law Rev 2025;111:139–209.Article
• 34. Kornieva Z, Lukianenko V, Baklazhenko Y. Research integrity in the age of AI: policies, practices, and challenges. Adv Educ 2025;18:4–14.ArticlePDF
• 35. Phillips T, Earl J. Reflections on the 2024 final rule on public health service policies on research misconduct. Account Res 2025;32:675–92.ArticlePubMed
• 36. Lee JY. Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article? J Educ Eval Health Prof 2023;20:6.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 37. Kim HJ, Yang JH, Chang DG, Lenke LG, Pizones J, Castelein R, et al. Assessing the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e52001.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 38. Lee J, Le T, Chen J, Lee D. Do language models plagiarize. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 2023; p. 3637–47.
• 39. GBD 2021 Demographics Collaborators. Global age-sex-specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950-2021, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2021. Lancet 2024;403:1989–2056.PubMedPMC
• 40. Midjourney. Terms of service [Internet]. Midjourney; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 9]. https://docs.midjourney.com/hc/en-us/articles/32083055291277-Terms-of-Service
• 41. OpenAI. Terms of use [Internet]. OpenAI; 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 9]. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/
• 42. Google. Gemini API additional terms of service [Internet]. Google; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 9]. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms?hl=en
• 43. Abani S, Volk HA, De Decker S, Fenn J, Rusbridge C, Charalambous M, et al. ChatGPT and scientific papers in veterinary neurology; is the genie out of the bottle? Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1272755.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 44. Li M, Wilson J. AI-integrated scaffolding to enhance agency and creativity in K-12 English language learners: a systematic review. Inf 2025;16:519.Article
• 45. Dwivedi YK, Kshetri N, Hughes L, Slade EL, Jeyaraj A, Kar AK, et al. Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag 2023;71:102642.Article
• 46. Messeri L, Crockett MJ. Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature 2024;627:49–58.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 47. Zhang M, Press O, Merrill W, Liu A, Smith NA. How language model hallucinations can snowball. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. 2024;235:59670–84.
• 48. Bhattacharyya M, Miller VM, Bhattacharyya D, Miller LE. High rates of fabricated and inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Cureus 2023;15:e39238.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 49. Ji Z, Lee N, Frieske R, Yu T, Su D, Xu Y, et al. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput Surv 2023;55:1–38.Article
• 50. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus 2023;15:e35179.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 51. Linardon J, Jarman HK, McClure Z, Anderson C, Liu C, Messer M. Influence of topic familiarity and prompt specificity on citation fabrication in mental health research using large language models: experimental study. JMIR Ment Health 2025;12:e80371.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 52. van Rensburg L. AI-powered citation auditing: a zero-assumption protocol for systematic reference verification in academic research [Preprint]. Posted 2025 Oct 17. arXiv:2511.04683 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04683.Article
• 53. Cestonaro C, Delicati A, Marcante B, Caenazzo L, Tozzo P. Defining medical liability when artificial intelligence is applied on diagnostic algorithms: a systematic review. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023;10:1305756.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 54. Kubsch M, Kastaun M, Wulff P, Graulich N, Ariely M, Gregorcic B, et al. Report on the Scoping Workshop on AI in Science Education Research 2025 [Preprint]. Posted 2025 Dec 9. arXiv:2511.14318. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.14318.Article
• 55. Eke DO. ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: threat to academic integrity? J Responsib Technol 2023;13:100060.Article
• 56. Omiye JA, Lester JC, Spichak S, Rotemberg V, Daneshjou R. Large language models propagate race-based medicine. NPJ Digit Med 2023;6:195.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 57. Kim E, Kipchumba F, Min S. Geographic variation in LLM DOI fabrication: cross-country analysis of citation accuracy across four large language models. Publications 2025;13:49.Article
• 58. Algaba A, Mazijn C, Holst V, Tori F, Wenmackers S, Ginis V. Large language models reflect human citation patterns with a heightened citation bias [Preprint]. Posted 2024 Aug 24. arXiv: 2405.15739v3. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.15739.Article
• 59. Wang Z, Wu Z, Zhang J, Jain N, Guan X, Koshiyama AS. Bias amplification: language models as increasingly biased media [Preprint]. Posted 2024 Aug 24. arXiv:2410.15234v3. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.15234.Article
• 60. Amanna A, Shinde I. Securing generative AI in healthcare: a zero-trust architecture powered by confidential computing on google cloud [Preprint]. Posted 2025 Nov 14. arXiv:2511.11836. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.11836.Article
• 61. Hillary VE, Gandhi Gopalsamy R, Santana LA, de Jesus PC, de Souza JB, Silva DM, et al. The impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the development of personalized pharmaceuticals and the future of precision medicine. EXCLI J 2024;23:1459–62.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 62. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Guidance on HIPAA & cloud computing [Internet]. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; [cited 2025 Dec 26]. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/health-information-technology/cloud-computing/index.htmlArticlePubMedPMC
• 63. Elsevier. The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier [Internet]. Elsevier; 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 7]. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics-books/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-the-editing-process
• 64. Lazo GR, Ayyappan D, Sharma PK, Tiwari VK. Contextual science and genome analysis for air-gapped AI research [Preprint]. Posted 2025 Mar 24. bioRxiv 2025.03.21.644606. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.21.644606.Article
• 65. Reddi VJ. Generative AI at the edge: challenges and opportunities: the next phase in AI deployment. Queue 2025;23:79–137.Article
• 66. Zhang Y, Chen X, Chen K, Du Y, Dang X, Heng P-A. The dual-use dilemma in LLMs: do empowering ethical capacities make a degraded utility [Preprint]? Posted 2025 Feb 27. arXiv:2501.13952. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.13952.Article
• 67. Chaudhari YS, Chaudhari MY, Pawar HA. Generative AI in scholarly writing: opportunities and ethical dilemmas. Trends Scholarly Publ 2025;4:22–8.Article
• 68. Hosseini M, Resnik DB, Holmes K. The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Res Ethics 2023;19:449–65.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 69. van Dis EAM, Bollen J, Zuidema W, van Rooij R, Bockting CL. ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature 2023;614:224–6.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 70. Chetwynd E. Ethical use of artificial intelligence for scientific writing: current trends. J Hum Lact 2024;40:211–5.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 71. Alfonso F, Crea F. New recommendations of the international committee of medical journal editors: use of artificial intelligence. Eur Heart J 2023;44:2888–90.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 72. Pennock R. AI and responsible authorship. Am Sci 2024;112:148–52.Article
• 73. Zeiser J. Owning decisions: AI decision-support and the attributability-gap. Sci Eng Ethics 2024;30:27.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 74. Kato T, Komura D, Panda B, Ishikawa S. Medicine for artificial intelligence: applying a medical framework to AI anomalies. Front Artif Intell 2025;8:1698717.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 75. Anh-Hoang D, Tran V, Nguyen LM. Survey and analysis of hallucinations in large language models: attribution to prompting strategies or model behavior. Front Artif Intell 2025;8:1622292.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 76. Chelli M, Descamps J, Lavoue V, Trojani C, Azar M, Deckert M, et al. Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and bard for systematic reviews: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e53164.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 77. Liang W, Yuksekgonul M, Mao Y, Wu E, Zou J. GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns (N Y) 2023;4:100779.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 78. Weber-Wulff D, Anohina-Naumeca A, Bjelobaba S, Foltynek T, Guerrero-Dib J, Popoola O. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. Int J Educ Integr 2023;19:1–39.ArticlePMCPDF
• 79. Gaidartzi A, Stamatoudi I. Authorship and ownership issues raised by AI-generated works: a comparative analysis. Laws 2025;14:57.Article
• 80. Chen Z, Chen C, Yang G, He X, Chi X, Zeng Z, et al. Research integrity in the era of artificial intelligence: challenges and responses. Medicine (Baltimore) 2024;103:e38811.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 81. Kellam H, Perez Cortes L, Gilmore T. Artificial intelligence as a mentor in the graduate online classroom: opportunities and challenges. Artif Intell Educ 2025;1:56–74.ArticlePDF
• 82. Hu G. Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers. Account Res 2024;31:978–80.ArticlePubMed
• 83. Fettiplace MR, Bhatia A, Chen Y, Orebaugh SL, Gofeld M, Gabriel RA, et al. Recommendations for disclosure of artificial intelligence in scientific writing and publishing: a regional anesthesia and pain medicine modified Delphi study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2025;rapm-2025-106852.ArticlePubMed
• 84. Nature Portfolio. Editorial policies: artificial intelligence (AI) [Internet]. Springer Nature; 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 7]. Available from: https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by