CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Academic integrity and plagiarismPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Writing and Publishing

Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications

Open access
Zielinski, Chris, Winker, Margaret A., Aggarwal, Rakesh, Ferris, Lorraine E., Heinemann, Markus, Lapeña Jr, Jose Florencio, Pai, Sanjay A., Ing, Edsel +4 more·2023·Colombia Medica
DOI 10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868PMC PMC10712422
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This statement revises our earlier “WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications” (January 20, 2023). The revision reflects the proliferation of chatbots and their expanding use in scholarly publishing over the last few months, as well as emerging concerns regarding lack of authenticity of content when using chatbots. These recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for the use of chatbots in papers published in their journals. They aim to help authors and reviewers understand how best to attribute the use of chatbots in their work and to address the need for all journal editors to have access to manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we will continue to modify these recommendations as the software and its applications develop.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This WAME statement revises earlier recommendations on chatbots and generative AI in scholarly publishing, adding guidance for authors, editors, and reviewers. It holds that chatbots cannot be authors, that their use must be transparently disclosed, and that humans remain responsible for accuracy, attribution, and confidentiality.

Key findings

  • Chatbots cannot be authors: they do not meet ICMJE authorship criteria, cannot give final approval, cannot understand conflict-of-interest statements, and have no legal standing to sign statements.
  • Authors must disclose chatbot use and provide information about how it was used; for drafting new text, prompts should be specified in acknowledgments, and for analytical work, reporting should appear in the Abstract and Methods with the full prompt, query time/date, AI tool, and version.
  • Authors are responsible for chatbot-generated material, including accuracy, absence of plagiarism, balanced views, and appropriate attribution of all sources.
  • Editors and peer reviewers must specify any chatbot use in manuscript evaluation, reviews, and correspondence; editors also need appropriate AI-detection tools, available regardless of ability to pay.

Methods

  • Design: a consensus/recommendation statement revising the earlier “WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications” (January 20, 2023).
  • Data or sample: Not stated in the paper; the statement draws on cited literature, ICMJE criteria, and emerging concerns rather than an empirical sample.
  • Main analysis: narrative development of five principal recommendations tailored to different uses of chatbots in scholarly publishing, including word-processing tasks, generation of ideas/text, and substantive research.

Limitations

  • Stated: the field is rapidly evolving, and the authors will continue to modify the recommendations as software and applications develop.
  • Evident from the text: the recommendations are consensus-based and not empirically tested; no data, sample, or formal analysis is reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 7 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

    • May combine two claims. 6
    • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8

    • May combine two claims.

      Interpretationreasoning

      Scholarly content generated or edited using AI would be retained and could potentially appear in future responses, increasing the risk of inadvertent plagiarism.

      “Therefore, scholarly content that is generated or edited using AI would be retained and as a result, could potentially appear in future responses, further increasing the risk of inadvertent plagiarism on the part of the user and any future users of the technology.”
      Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

    • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

      Interpretationreasoning

      It is potentially scientific misconduct to offer material generated by a chatbot for publication, irrespective of how it was written.

      “Otherwise, it is potentially scientific misconduct to offer such material for publication, irrespective of how it was written.”
      Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

    • May combine two claims.

      Premisecitation

      Chatbots retain the information supplied to them, including content and prompts, and may use this information in future responses.

      “Chatbots retain the information supplied to them, including content and prompts, and may use this information in future responses 8 .”
      Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
      • cites [8] Thorbecke C Don't tell anything to a chatbot you want to keep private CNN Business 2023 https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/tech/chatgpt-ai-privacy-concerns/index.html May 27, 2023

        Not checked in the free run.

    • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

      Premisecitation

      This is consistent with the ICMJE recommendation of acknowledging writing assistance and providing in the Methods detailed information about how the study was conducted and the results generated.

      “This is consistent with the ICMJE recommendation of acknowledging writing assistance 11 and providing in the Methods detailed information about how the study was conducted and the results generated 12 .”
      Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
      • cites [11] ICMJE Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Non-Author Contributors ICMJE 2023 https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html May 27, 2023

        Not checked in the free run.

      • cites [12] ICMJE Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Medical Journal. Methods ICMJE 2023 https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#d May 27, 2023

        Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

      Premisecitation

      Chatbots are activated by a plain-language instruction, or prompt, provided by the user, and generate responses using statistical and probability-based language models.

      “Chatbots are activated by a plain-language instruction, or “prompt,” provided by the user. They generate responses using statistical and probability-based language models 5 .”
      Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
      • cites [5] Wun STY He SZ Liu JP Sun SQ Liu K Han QL Tang Y A brief overview of ChatGPT The history, status quo and potential future development IEEE/CAA J Autom Sinica 2023 10 5 1122 1136 10.1109/JAS.2023.123618 source

    • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

      Premisecitation

      New legal issues have arisen in connection with chatbots and generative AI.

      “New legal issues have also arisen in connection with chatbots and generative AI 7 .”
      Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
      • cites [7] Appel G Neelbauer J Schweidel DA Generative AI has an intellectual property problem 2023 Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem May 27, 2023

        Not checked in the free run.

    • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

      Interpretationnone given

      Chatbots retain the prompts fed to them, including manuscript content, and supplying an author's manuscript to a chatbot breaches confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.

      “They should be aware that chatbots retain the prompts fed to them, including manuscript content, and supplying an author's manuscript to a chatbot breaches confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.”
      Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

    • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

      Premisecitation

      There are concerns about the effects of chatbots on knowledge creation and dissemination, including their potential to spread and amplify mis- and disinformation, and their broader impact on jobs, economy, and health.

      “Consequently, there are concerns about the effects of chatbots on knowledge creation and dissemination - including their potential to spread and amplify mis- and disinformation 6 - and their broader impact on jobs and the economy, as well as the health of individuals and populations.”
      Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
      • cites [6] Bhuiyan J OpenAI CEO calls for laws to mitigate 'risks of increasingly powerful' AI The Guardian 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/16/ceo-openai-chatgpt-ai-tech-regulations May 27, 2023

        Not checked in the free run.

    • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

      Interpretationreasoning

      Chatbots cannot be authors.

      “Chatbots cannot be authors.”
      Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
      • Rests on an assumption: The legal status of an author differs from country to country but under most jurisdictions, an author must be a legal person.

    • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

      Premisecitation

      Chatbots do not meet the ICMJE authorship criteria, particularly that of being able to give final approval of the version to be published and to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

      “Chatbots do not meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, particularly that of being able to give “final approval of the version to be published” and “to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved” 10 .”
      Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
      • cites [10] ICMJE Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2. Who Is an Author? ICMJE 2023 https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html May 27, 2023

        Not checked in the free run.

    10 of 10

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      No AI tool can understand a conflict-of-interest statement and does not have the legal standing to sign a statement.

      “No AI tool can “understand” a conflict-of-interest statement and does not have the legal standing to sign a statement.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      Chatbots have no affiliation independent of their developers.

      “Chatbots have no affiliation independent of their developers.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      Journals have begun to publish articles in which chatbots such as Bard, Bing and ChatGPT have been used, with some journals listing chatbots as co-authors.

      “Journals have begun to publish articles in which chatbots such as Bard, Bing and ChatGPT have been used, with some journals listing chatbots as co-authors.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      The legal status of an author differs from country to country but under most jurisdictions, an author must be a legal person.

      “The legal status of an author differs from country to country but under most jurisdictions, an author must be a legal person.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      Chatbot output currently carries the risk of including biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations, and plagiarism, many caused by algorithms and training materials.

      “For example, chatbot output currently carries the risk of including biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations, and plagiarism - many of which are caused by the algorithms governing its generation and heavily dependent on the contents of the materials used in its training.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      A chatbot may be designed to omit sources that oppose viewpoints expressed in its output.

      “Since a chatbot may be designed to omit sources that oppose viewpoints expressed in its output, it is the authors’ responsibility to find, review and include such counterviews in their articles.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      Many medical journal editors use manuscript evaluation approaches that were not designed to deal with AI innovations and industries, including manipulated plagiarized text and images and papermill-generated documents.

      “Many medical journal editors use manuscript evaluation approaches that were not designed to deal with AI innovations and industries, including manipulated plagiarized text and images and papermill-generated documents.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      Medical journal editors have already been at a disadvantage when trying to differentiate the legitimate from the fabricated, and chatbots take this challenge to a new level.

      “They have already been at a disadvantage when trying to differentiate the legitimate from the fabricated, and chatbots take this challenge to a new level.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      It is of particular importance to editors of medical journals where the adverse consequences of misinformation include potential harms to people.

      “This is of particular importance to editors of medical journals where the adverse consequences of misinformation include potential harms to people.”

    • The paper relies on this without support.

      Currently, individuals in scholarly publishing may use chatbots for simple word-processing tasks, generation of ideas and text, and substantive research.

      “Currently, individuals in scholarly publishing may use chatbots for: 1) simple word-processing tasks (analogous to, and an extension of, word-processing and grammar-checking software), 2) the generation of ideas and text, and 3) substantive research.”
    10 of 10

    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?

    • Generative AI tools do not meet the generally agreed standards of authorship of academic research.

      “Another core principle reflected in these statements is that, despite their ability to generate novel and new text, generative AI tools do not meet the generally agreed standards of authorship of academic research [7, 9, 11, 12].”

      From Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

    • The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, JAMA Network Journals, and the World Association of Medical Editors have all issued specific guidelines on the use of generative AI.

      “Further, and especially relevant to the work of academic writers in healthcare simulation, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [10], JAMA Network Journals [7], and the World Association of Medical Editors [11] have all issued specific guidelines on the use of generative AI.”

      From Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

    • Transparency about the use of generative AI tools in the academic writing process is a cornerstone of academic integrity.

      “Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, transparency about the use of generative AI tools in the academic writing process is a cornerstone of academic integrity [7, 9, 11].”

      From Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

    Cites

    Flagged first, then by citations

    Research works printed but not linked: 2

    1. Methods. Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Medical Journal. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#d Accessed May 27, 2023.
    2. Plagiarism. Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100329803;jsessionid=D1759DA0FD79ACB96407CDB4B7BC8FA0 Accessed May 27, 2023. · DOI

    Cited by

    Sorted by citations

    Related

    Authors
    Zielinski, C., Winker, M. A., Aggarwal, R., Ferris, L. E., Heinemann, M., Lapeña Jr, J. F., Pai, S. A., Ing, E., Citrome, L., Alam, M., Voight, M., & Habibzadeh, F.
    Affiliations
    • University of Winchester (GB)
    • Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (IN)
    • University of Toronto (CA)
    • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
    • University of Alberta (CA)
    • New York Medical College (US)
    • Northwestern University (US)
    • Belmont University (US)
    • Lancet Laboratories (ZA)
    ORCID
    Venue
    Colombia Medica
    Publisher
    Universidad del Valle
    Published
    2023-12-01
    Volume
    54
    Issue
    3
    Pages
    e1015868
    ISSN
    • 0120-8322 (ISSN-L)
    • 1657-9534
    DOI
    10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868
    PMC
    PMC10712422
    OpenAlex
    W4389235056
    Cited by
    127
    References
    4
    Citations by year
    2026: 35 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 20
    FWCI
    32.66
    Type
    journal article
    Language
    en
    Open access
    Licence
    Locations
    • Colombia medica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
    • PubMed (publishedVersion)
    • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
    • Touro Scholar (Touro College) (submittedVersion)
    Topics
    • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
    • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
    • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
    Keywords
    chatbots, generative AI, scholarly publishing, ChatGPT, journal editorial policy, content authenticity, peer review
    MeSH terms
    Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Publishing

    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.

    Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-29.

    Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-29.

    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