Artificial intelligence: a challenge to scientific communication
Abstract
Recent years have seen formidable advances in artificial intelligence. Developments include a large number of specialised systems either existing or planned for use in scientific research, data analysis, translation, text production and design with grammar checking and stylistic revision, plagiarism detection, and scientific review in addition to general-purpose AI systems for searching the internet and generative AI systems for texts, images, videos, and musical compositions. These systems promise more ease and simplicity in many aspects of work. Blind trust in AI systems with uncritical, careless use of AI results is dangerous, as these systems do not have any inherent understanding of the content they process or generate, but only simulate this understanding by reproducing statistical patterns extracted from training data. This article discusses the potential and risk of using AI in scientific communication and explores potential systemic consequences of widespread AI implementation in this context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
GenAI tools are used in scientific writing for manuscript drafting, literature summarization, and data analysis.
“The use of Generative AI (GenAI) in scientific writing has grown rapidly, offering tools for manuscript drafting, literature summarization, and data analysis.”
From AI for scientific integrity: detecting ethical breaches, errors, and misconduct in manuscripts (2025) · cites this paper as Gauckler and Werner, 2024
Cites
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool
Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update · doi:10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145 · Cited by 580 · see citing works
ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports
Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A. T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B. O., Ricke, J., et al. (2023) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10213-1 · Cited by 549 · see citing works
Walker, H. L., Ghani, S., Kuemmerli, C., Nebiker, C. A., Müller, B. P., Raptis, D. A., & Staubli, S. M. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/47479 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Evolution or revolution?
Gordijn, B., & Have, H. T. (2023) · Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation
Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J. R., Whybrow, P. C., Achtyes, E., & Bauer, M. (2024) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.2023.136 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Why and how to embrace AI such as ChatGPT in your academic life
Lin, Z. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sdx3j · Cited by 202 · see citing works
The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers
Giglio, A. D., & Costa, M. U. P. D. (2023) · Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira · doi:10.1590/1806-9282.20230560 · Cited by 158 · cited 1× · see citing works
“AI-based translation systems offer great potential for overcoming language-related biases and barriers to access: they can make it easier for non-native speakers to read and produce [60] academic publications in English.”
Artificial intelligence in academic writing: a paradigm-shifting technological advance
Golan, R., Reddy, R., Muthigi, A., & Ramasamy, R. (2023) · Nature Reviews Urology · doi:10.1038/s41585-023-00746-x · Cited by 136 · see citing works
ChatGPT in Medical Imaging Higher Education
Currie, G., Singh, C., Nelson, T., Nabasenja, C., Al-Hayek, Y., & Spuur, K. (2023) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2023.05.011 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing
Conroy, G. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03144-w · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Kendall, G., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2024) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1578 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review
Pérez-Neri, I., Pineda, C., & Sandoval, H. (2022) · Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Bias in algorithms of AI systems developed for COVID-19: A scoping review
Delgado, J., de Manuel, A., Parra, I., Moyano, C., Rueda, J., Guersenzvaig, A., Ausin, T., Cruz, M., Casacuberta, D., & Puyol, A. (2022) · Journal of Bioethical Inquiry · doi:10.1007/s11673-022-10200-z · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI for scientific integrity: detecting ethical breaches, errors, and misconduct in manuscripts
Pellegrina, D., & Helmy, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1644098 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gauckler, C., & Werner, M. H.
- Affiliations
- Universität Greifswald (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Gauckler, Charlotte
- Venue
- Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2024-12
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1309-1321
- ISSN
- 0023-2165 (ISSN-L)
- 1439-3999
- OpenAlex
- W4405042800
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- de
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, science communication, generative AI, AI in scientific publishing, AI-generated text, plagiarism detection, scientific peer review, AI limitations, data analysis
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Humans, Science
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
