Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38248432›Full record

ReviewClinics and practice2023

Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review.

Jing Miao, Charat Thongprayoon, Supawadee Suppadungsuk, Oscar A Garcia Valencia, Fawad Qureshi, Wisit Cheungpasitporn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Editorial: Research ethics and integrity in the artificial intelligence era.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Decipher the Cipher.Contemporary clinical dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jing MiaoDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0642-9740
Charat ThongprayoonDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Supawadee SuppadungsukDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Oscar A Garcia ValenciaDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0186-9448
Fawad QureshiDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3387-4882
Wisit CheungpasitpornDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9954-9711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

academic integrity and AIAI-enhanced plagiarism detectionartificial intelligence in academiaethical dilemmas in scholarly writingnephrology research ethics

Identifiers

PMID38248432
PMCPMC10801601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.