ArticleResearch ethics2025
Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct.
Article in Research ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values.AI and ethics · 2026Article
- Editorial: Research ethics and integrity in the artificial intelligence era.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- The rising danger of AI-generated images in nanomaterials science and what we can do about it.Nature nanotechnology · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- The crucial role and challenges of medical journal editors in the modern era.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- On the ethical and moral dimensions of using artificial intelligence for evidence synthesis.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Steering veridical large language model analyses by correcting and enriching generated database queries: first steps toward ChatGPT bioinformatics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Journals and publishers are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen submissions for potential misconduct, including plagiarism and data or image manipulation. While using AI can enhance the integrity of published manuscripts, it can also increase the risk of false/unsubstantiated allegations. Ambiguities related to journals' and publishers' responsibilities concerning fairness and transparency also raise ethical concerns. In this Topic Piece, we offer the following guidance: (1) All cases of suspected misconduct identified by AI tools should be carefully reviewed by humans to verify accuracy and ensure accountability; (2) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should use only well-tested and reliable tools, remain vigilant concerning forms of misconduct that cannot be detected by these tools, and stay abreast of advancements in technology; (3) Journals/publishers should inform authors about irregularities identified by AI tools and give them a chance to respond before forwarding allegations to their institutions in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines; (4) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should screen all relevant submissions and not just random/purposefully selected submissions; and (5) Journals should inform authors about their definition of misconduct, their use of AI tools to detect misconduct, and their policies and procedures for responding to suspected cases of misconduct.
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.