Ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly writing
Abstract
The advancement of generative artificial intelligence has sparked widespread discussion regarding its ethical implications in scholarly writing. While AI offers remarkable capabilities, such as assisting with research, drafting, and editing, it also raises concerns related to plagiarism, authorship, accuracy, transparency, and privacy. This review explores the ethical considerations surrounding AI use in academia, examining policies implemented by universities, publishers, and professional organizations. The paper outlines a structured approach to integrating AI responsibly in scholarly work, emphasizing five key stages: acceptance, seeking guidance, verifying accuracy, optimizing prompt engineering, and implementing ethical practices. Additionally, the review discusses recent guidelines from organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
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?
This tension between enabling technological innovation and maintaining ethical safeguards has been noted in recent scholarship on AI in publishing.
“This tension between enabling technological innovation and maintaining ethical safeguards has been noted in recent scholarship on AI in publishing (Clark, 2025; Pongrac, 2024).”
From Use of artificial intelligence tools in the publishing process: expectations from publishers through author guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as Clark, 2025
Cites
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · cited 1× · see citing works
“AI literacy is de fi ned “ as a set of competencies that enables individuals to critically evaluate AI technologies; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace ” (Long & Magerko, 2020, p. 2).”
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
Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor
Leung, T. I., de Azevedo Cardoso, T., Mavragani, A., & Eysenbach, G. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/51584 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review Among Top 100 Medical Journals
Li, Z.-Q., Xu, H.-L., Cao, H.-J., Liu, Z.-L., Fei, Y.-T., & Liu, J.-P. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.48609 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Baek, G., & Cha, C. (2025) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/wvn.70003 · Cited by 30 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Recently, a study was conducted that utilized AI to help reduce burnout in nurses (Baek & Cha, 2025).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chigwada, J., & Ngulube, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2026.1740510 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“This tension between enabling technological innovation and maintaining ethical safeguards has been noted in recent scholarship on AI in publishing (Clark, 2025; Pongrac, 2024).”
Deng, H., Yang, M., Huang, L., Yang, Z., & Jiang, N. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1817904 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“One stream emphasizes technological environmental cues, such as platform reminders and detection mechanisms (Clark, 2025; Klella and Mrghem, 2024), whereas another focuses on institutionalized educational inputs, including academic ethics course experience and formal policy communication (Biagini,…”
Karásek, R., Vlčeková, A., & Strenáčiková, M. (2026) · European Journal of Teaching and Education · doi:10.33422/ejte.v8i3.1925
“However, teachers must help students to get acquainted with issues about ethics, since generative AI raises concerns about authorship, plagiarism, privacy, and transparency (Clark, 2025).”
Luo, S.-S., Zheng, R., Chen, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, L.-X., & Liu, H. (2026) · 2026 8th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) · doi:10.1109/cste69562.2026.11649685
“…users may employ writing tools indiscriminately, potentially raising concerns related to plagiarism, authorship, accuracy, transparency, and privacy[18];Furthermore, some scholars argue that it possesses limitations such as technical inaccuracies and an overly standardized writing style[19].”
Maiti, A. (2026) · JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LEARNING AND DISTANCE EDUCATION · doi:10.56778/jdlde.v4i8.659
“With suggestions for a balanced strategy that combines AI and human expertise to maintain the rigor and integrity of academic publishing, there is a rising awareness of the necessity of human oversight in the usage of GenAI (Dwivedi et al., 2024); Clark, 2025).”
- Authors
- Clark, T. A.
- Affiliations
- Austin Peay State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Clark, Terri A.
- ORCID
- Clark, Terri A.
- Venue
- Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-05-30
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 85-91
- ISSN
- 2332-0249 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4410922608
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 4.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, AI ethics, academic writing, academic integrity, plagiarism, authorship, AI-generated text, prompt engineering, transparency, privacy, AI policy in higher education, American Psychological Association, ICMJE
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
