Ethical consideration of the use of generative artificial intelligence, including ChatGPT in writing a nursing article
Open accessAbstract
CHNRAfter the introduction of ChatGPT (generative pre-trained transformer, GPT) to the public by OpenAI Co. on November 30, 2022 [1], concern about the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot and generative AI was also raised rapidly by the researchers and editors.Although generative AI, including AI chatbot, has been developed since 2016, the public and professionals' interest exploded after the open use of ChatGPT.This editorial will discuss the ethical issues for using generative AI like ChatGPT in writing nursing articles.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Implementation barriers included privacy concerns and academic dishonesty risks, with students potentially using GenAI to complete assignments rather than develop original work.
“Implementation barriers included privacy concerns and academic dishonesty risks (Sun, 2023), with students potentially using GenAI to complete assignments rather than develop original work (Thakur et al., 2023).”
From Patterns, advances, and gaps in using ChatGPT and similar technologies in nursing education: A PAGER scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as Sun, 2023
The paper’s “Common Research and Publication Ethics Issues” section discusses plagiarism and fabrication risks when generative AI is used to write articles. It does not address privacy concerns or students using GenAI to complete assignments instead of producing original work. The printed sentence also attaches those claims to Sun (2023) and Thakur et al. (2023), not Huh. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGenAI plays a role in creating adaptive learning resources.
“additional studies substantiate GenAI's role in creating adaptive learning resources (Bumbach, 2024; Huh, 2023; Liu et al., 2023; O'Connor et al., 2023).”
From Patterns, advances, and gaps in using ChatGPT and similar technologies in nursing education: A PAGER scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as Huh, 2023
The introduction and Section 2 discuss using generative AI to write nursing articles and the publication policies governing that use. Searches for “adaptive learning resources” and personalized educational materials found no passage addressing the creation of learning resources. (LLM, conf=0.75)
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
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
Huh, S. (2023) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.1 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
Self-citationHuh, S. (2023) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.01 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Self-citationAI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community
Elali, F. R., & Rachid, L. N. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100706 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?
Lee, J. Y. (2023) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2022.20.6 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?
Lee, J. Y. (2023) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.6 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications
Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
O’Connor, S. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103572 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
CrossRef tools for small publishers
Lammey, R. (2015) · Science Editing · doi:10.6087/kcse.48 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106822 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Huh, S.
- Affiliations
- Hallym University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Huh, Sun
- ORCID
- Huh, Sun
- Venue
- Child Health Nursing Research
- Published
- 2023-10-31
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 249-251
- ISSN
- 2287-9110 (ISSN-L)
- 2287-9129
- PMC
- PMC10636529
- OpenAlex
- W4388133680
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Child Health Nursing Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation of Korea (2023J1A1A1A01093462)
- Ministry of Education
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, AI ethics, nursing research writing, AI chatbots, research integrity, pediatric nursing
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
