The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Journals, publishers, and professional associations have responded quickly to perceived challenges LLMs present to the scientific publication process, yet their approaches have been fragmented and inconsistent [3–8]”
From A call for clarity: a unified checklist for reporting use of large language models in writing scientific manuscripts (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24750 · Cited by 919
Zhou, Q.-H. (2015) · Chinese Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.cnre.2016.01.001 · Cited by 738
Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: Ethical challenges for medical publishing
Liebrenz, M., Schleifer, R., Buadze, A., Bhugra, D., & Smith, A. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00019-5 · Cited by 594
The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023) · Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/17470161231180449 · Cited by 341
Self-citationChatGPT: Evolution or revolution?
Gordijn, B., & Have, H. T. (2023) · Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0 · Cited by 317
Self-citationUsing AI to write scholarly publications
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2024) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535 · Cited by 286
Self-citationZielinski, C., Winker, M. A., Aggarwal, R., Ferris, L. E., Heinemann, M., Lapeña, J. F. F., Pai, S. A., Ing, E. B., Citrome, L., Alam, M., et al. (2023) · Philippine Journal of Pathology · doi:10.21141/pjp.2023.08 · Cited by 25
Cited by
Mehta, N., Felder, R. M., Kodish, E., Imrey, P. B., & Frankel, R. M. (2026) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-026-00212-3 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaebnick, G. E., Magnus, D. C., Kao, A., Hosseini, M., Resnik, D., Dubljević, V., Rentmeester, C., Gordijn, B., & Cherry, M. J.
- Venue
- Ethics & Human Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 39-43
- ISSN
- 2578-2355
- 2578-2363
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- Licence
- Funders
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR001422)
- National Science Foundation (#2043612)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/eahr.500182
- The paper
- Kaebnick, G. E., Magnus, D. C., Kao, A., Hosseini, M., Resnik, D., Dubljević, V., Rentmeester, C., Gordijn, B., & Cherry, M. J. (2023). Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing. Ethics & Human Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500182
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
