Cited by 62Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Writing and PublishingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Writing: Current Trends

Open access
Chetwynd, Ellen·2024·Journal of Human Lactation

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a big topic and is evolving rapidly.This About Research article will specifically focus on the use of AI in scientific writing and will not cover the myriad ways that AI is being used in scientific inquiry.It is titled "Current Trends" because it must be considered in the time it was written, which is early 2024.As the field evolves, the journal will continue to offer the latest guidelines to authors and links to the organizations working on ethics in the use of AI in publishing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/08903344241235160

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • AI contributions are always subject to the researcher's scrutiny and are only as valuable as the meaning the researcher can derive and justify from them.

    “AI contributions are always subject to the researcher's scrutiny and are only as valuable as the meaning the researcher can derive and justify from them [18].”

    From Developing the HAKI model as a conceptual framework for AI-assisted academic research (2026) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Responsible Use of AI and Conclusion sections say researchers must check and validate AI-generated work, engage with its output, and take responsibility for what they publish. The paper does not say that AI contributions are valuable only to the extent that a researcher can derive and justify meaning from them; that value judgment goes beyond its discussion of oversight and accountability. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sage. (n.d.). Author guidelines on using generative AI and large language models. https://group.sagepub.com/assistive-and-generative-ai-guidelines-for-authors
  2. World Association of Medical Editors. (2023). Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts. 10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 37523731 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chetwynd, E.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Chetwynd, Ellen
Venue
Journal of Human Lactation
Published
2024-03-14
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
211-215
ISSN
  • 0890-3344 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5732
OpenAlex
W4392810102
Cited by
62
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 5
FWCI
25.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Human Lactation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence, scientific writing, AI ethics, research integrity, author guidelines, AI in publishing
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Breast Feeding, Female, Humans

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