ReviewClinics and practice2023
Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review.
Review in Clinics and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond social media: the era of generative AI and intelligent digital platforms in nephrology education.Renal failure · 2026Article
- AI in academia: navigating ethical crossroads of innovation, integrity, and equity.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in nephrology: predicting CKD progression and personalizing treatment.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence to Improve Kidney Care: A Statement from the American Society of Nephrology.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026Review
- The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Developing Cognitive and Research Talent Among Postgraduate Students.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Editorial: Research ethics and integrity in the artificial intelligence era.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Generative AI in academia: Efficiency versus scholarship.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Large language models in nephrology: applications and challenges in chronic kidney disease management.Renal failure · 2025Review
- Academic misconduct and artificial intelligence use by medical students, interns and PhD students in Ukraine: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- AI in Neurology: Everything, Everywhere, all at Once PART 2: Speech, Sentience, Scruples, and Service.Annals of neurology · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Use in Medical Education: Best Practices and Future Directions.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- Reflections on the “Ethics Guideline for using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research and Publication Process of Higher Education Institutions”Balkan medical journal · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence as a tool for improving health literacy in kidney care.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient Comprehension of Glomerular Disease Treatments Using ChatGPT.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Decipher the Cipher.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has greatly propelled progress across various sectors including the field of nephrology academia. However, this advancement has also given rise to ethical challenges, notably in scholarly writing. AI's capacity to automate labor-intensive tasks like literature reviews and data analysis has created opportunities for unethical practices, with scholars incorporating AI-generated text into their manuscripts, potentially undermining academic integrity. This situation gives rise to a range of ethical dilemmas that not only question the authenticity of contemporary academic endeavors but also challenge the credibility of the peer-review process and the integrity of editorial oversight. Instances of this misconduct are highlighted, spanning from lesser-known journals to reputable ones, and even infiltrating graduate theses and grant applications. This subtle AI intrusion hints at a systemic vulnerability within the academic publishing domain, exacerbated by the publish-or-perish mentality. The solutions aimed at mitigating the unethical employment of AI in academia include the adoption of sophisticated AI-driven plagiarism detection systems, a robust augmentation of the peer-review process with an "AI scrutiny" phase, comprehensive training for academics on ethical AI usage, and the promotion of a culture of transparency that acknowledges AI's role in research. This review underscores the pressing need for collaborative efforts among academic nephrology institutions to foster an environment of ethical AI application, thus preserving the esteemed academic integrity in the face of rapid technological advancements. It also makes a plea for rigorous research to assess the extent of AI's involvement in the academic literature, evaluate the effectiveness of AI-enhanced plagiarism detection tools, and understand the long-term consequences of AI utilization on academic integrity. An example framework has been proposed to outline a comprehensive approach to integrating AI into Nephrology academic writing and peer review. Using proactive initiatives and rigorous evaluations, a harmonious environment that harnesses AI's capabilities while upholding stringent academic standards can be envisioned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.