The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence ( AI ) in academic writing
Open accessAbstract
The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic research writing has revolutionized the field, offering powerful tools like ChatGPT and Bard to aid researchers in content generation and idea enhancement. We explore the current state of transparency regarding generative AI use in nursing academic research journals, emphasizing the need for explicitly declaring the use of generative AI by authors in the manuscript. Out of 125 nursing studies journals, 37.6% required explicit statements about generative AI use in their authors' guidelines. No significant differences in impact factors or journal categories were found between journals with and without such requirement. A similar evaluation of medicine, general and internal journals showed a lower percentage (14.5%) including the information about generative AI usage. Declaring generative AI tool usage is crucial for maintaining the transparency and credibility in academic writing. Additionally, extending the requirement for AI usage declarations to journal reviewers can enhance the quality of peer review and combat predatory journals in the academic publishing landscape. Our study highlights the need for active participation from nursing researchers in discussions surrounding standardization of generative AI declaration in academic research writing.
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?
Previous studies either focused on top ranked journals or exclusively on nursing journals, leading to an incomplete assessment of such guidelines across non-top ranked medical journals and a lack of empirical comparisons with top ranked journals.
“Second, previous studies either focused on top ranked journals or exclusively on nursing journals [40, 41], leading to an incomplete assessment of such guidelines across non-top ranked medical journals and a lack of empirical comparisons with top ranked journals.”
From Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Another study found less than 40% of 125 nursing journals had explicit instructions for author disclosure of GAI usage.
“The other study examined author disclosure recommendations for GAI usage in 125 nursing journals and found less than 40% of them had explicit instructions [41].”
From Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
ChatGPT can assist in generating ideas, expanding the scope of scholarly writing, and fostering innovative thinking.
“They also noted that ChatGPT could assist in generating ideas, expanding the scope of scholarly writing, and fostering innovative thinking.”
From Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review (2024) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2023
Evidence from this rapid review indicates a significant gap in empirical studies exploring the impact of ChatGPT on nursing research, as only one study focused on this area.
“Evidence from this rapid review also indicates a significant gap in empirical studies exploring the impact of ChatGPT on nursing research, as only one study focused on this area (Tang et al., 2023).”
From Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review (2024) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2023
Cites
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Liu, X., Cruz Rivera, S., Moher, D., Calvert, M. J., Denniston, A. K., The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Steering Group, Chan, A.-W., Darzi, A., Holmes, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x · Cited by 1,421 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Cruz Rivera, S., Liu, X., Chan, A.-W., Denniston, A. K., Calvert, M. J., The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Steering Group, Darzi, A., Holmes, C., Yau, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1037-7 · Cited by 748 · see citing works
Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?
O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Flanagin, A., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Berkwits, M., & Christiansen, S. L. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.1344 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Tam, W., Huynh, T., Tang, A., Luong, S., Khatri, Y., & Zhou, W. (2023) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105917 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Self-citationInstitutional Review Board Approval and Publication of Human Research Results
Amdur, R. J. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540350059034 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
ChatGPT: standard reporting guidelines for responsible use
Cacciamani, G. E., Collins, G. S., & Gill, I. S. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01853-w · Cited by 56 · see citing works
O’Connor, S. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103572 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Predatory-journal papers have little scientific impact
Chawla, D. S. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00031-6 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review
Kleib, M., Darko, E. M., Akingbade, O., Kennedy, M., Majekodunmi, P., Nickel, E., & Vogelsang, L. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100252 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Pratiwi, H., Suherman, Hasruddin, & Ridha, M. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70083 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Yin, S., Huang, S., Xue, P., Xu, Z., Lian, Z., Ye, C., Ma, S., Liu, M., Hu, Y., Lu, P., et al. (2025) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-025-03899-1 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
The use of AI disclosure statements in teaching: Developing skills for psychologists of the future
Overono, A. L., & Ditta, A. S. (2025) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/00986283241275664 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Apata, O. E., Kwok, O.-M., & Lee, Y.-H. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.87297 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
The application of ChatGPT in nursing: a bibliometric and visualized analysis
Wang, P., Zhang, Q., Zhang, W., & Sun, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1521712 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Liu, H. (2026) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2549310 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Themes in the Declared Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assessment
Maguire, J., English, R., Cao, Q., & Seow, C. K. (2025) · Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computing Education Practice · doi:10.1145/3702212.3702217 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Starting with AI: First Year Engineering Students Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Chaback, B., & Gray, D. (2026) · 2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings · doi:10.18260/1-2--60543
- Authors
- Tang, A., Li, K., Kwok, K. O., Cao, L., Luong, S., & Tam, W.
- Affiliations
- RMIT Vietnam (VN)
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Sichuan University (CN)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Kwok, Kin On
- Venue
- Journal of Nursing Scholarship
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-10-31
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 314-318
- ISSN
- 0363-2792 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-6546
- 1547-5069
- OpenAlex
- W4388035208
- Semantic Scholar
- 27b4d4a9c6717b5ef062ddc472383b65db17932a
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 34
- FWCI
- 143.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Nursing Scholarship (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CityU Scholars (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- generative AI, research transparency, nursing journals, author guidelines, peer review, predatory journals, ChatGPT, AI in academic writing, research integrity
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Peer Review, Publishing, Writing, Nursing Research
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
