CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics and Social Impacts of AIPublishing and Scholarly Communication

Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis

Open access
da Veiga, Adéle·2025·Science Editing
DOI 10.6087/kcse.352
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: This analysis aims to propose guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) research ethics in scientific publications, intending to inform publishers and academic institutional policies in order to guide them toward a coherent and consistent approach to AI research ethics.Methods: A literature-based thematic analysis was conducted. The study reviewed the publication policies of the top 10 journal publishers addressing the use of AI in scholarly publications as of October 2024. Thematic analysis using Atlas.ti identified themes and subthemes across the documents, which were consolidated into proposed research ethics guidelines for using generative AI and AI-assisted tools in scholarly publications.Results: The analysis revealed inconsistencies among publishers’ policies on AI use in research and publications. AI-assisted tools for grammar and formatting are generally accepted, but positions vary regarding generative AI tools used in pre-writing and research methods. Key themes identified include author accountability, human oversight, recognized and unrecognized uses of AI tools, and the necessity for transparency in disclosing AI usage. All publishers agree that AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Concerns involve biases, quality and reliability issues, compliance with intellectual property rights, and limitations of AI detection tools.Conclusion: The article highlights the significant knowledge gap and inconsistencies in guidelines for AI use in scientific research. There is an urgent need for unified ethical standards, and guidelines are proposed for distinguishing between the accepted use of AI-assisted tools and the cautious use of generative AI tools.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.6087/kcse.352

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Using AI in peer review and publishing [Internet]
  2. Generative AI policies for journals [Internet]
  3. Publishers ranking [Internet]
  4. The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier [Internet]
  5. Artificial intelligence (AI) [Internet]
  6. Best practice guidelines on research integrity and publishing ethics [Internet]
  7. Wiley’s AI principles [Internet]
  8. Research and publication ethics [Internet]
  9. 2023, MDPI’s updated guidelines on artificial intelligence and authorship [Internet]
  10. AI policy [Internet]
  11. Submission and peer review policies [Internet]
  12. Ethics [Internet]
  13. Author guidelines [Internet]
  14. Authors’ rights and use of AI tools/technologies guidance [Internet]
  15. Artificial intelligence (AI) principles [Internet]
  16. Authorship and AI tools [Internet]
  17. 2024, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals [Internet]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
da Veiga, A.
ORCID
da Veiga, Adéle
Venue
Science Editing
Publisher
Korean Council of Science Editors
Published
2025-02-05
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
28-34
ISSN
  • 2287-7835 (ISSN-L)
  • 2288-8063
  • 2288-7474
DOI
10.6087/kcse.352
OpenAlex
W4407230774
Semantic Scholar
7d28ce0c682f617ee758b5cee8b36cdd4352a352
Cited by
18
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 2
FWCI
18.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science Editing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
generative AI, AI-assisted tools, research ethics, scholarly publishing, journal publication policy, AI disclosure, authorship attribution, human oversight, algorithmic bias, intellectual property, AI detection tools

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