ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Occupational injuries in Ethiopia: an umbrella review of prevalence, factors, and prevention from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Practical guide to structuring the Discussion section in clinical and epidemiological studies.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Hallucination Rate of Peer-Reviewed Citations Generated by Large Language Models in Neurocritical Care.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and our journal, "Einstein São Paulo".Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Technology Review: The Hidden Influence of AI in Orthopaedic Surgery.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- On simulation, artificial intelligence, and the spirit of the Shokunin.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Developing Cognitive and Research Talent Among Postgraduate Students.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Ethical Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Use in Scholarly Publishing for Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research: A Framework for Integrity.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2026Article
- Bibliometric, methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews with explicit AI disclosure statements: an exploratory meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Our journal in the era of artificial intelligence.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026Article
- The relationship between patterns of artificial intelligence use, academic resilience, and burnout among graduate students in special education departments at Saudi universities.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Content of Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies in Iranian Medical Science Journals.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- Impact of an AI workshop on knowledge and attitudes toward AI in scientific publishing among surgeons at an international abdominal wall surgery congress.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Generative AI in academia: Efficiency versus scholarship.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: Expectations for authors and reviewers atPreventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- The Presence and Nature of AI-Use Disclosure Statements in Medical Education Journals: A Bibliometric Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of large language model-generated prior authorization letters in nephrology.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Complementary AI in higher education: behavioral, cognitive, and ethical implications of ChatGPT and DeepSeek.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools have been selectively adopted across the academic community to help researchers complete tasks in a more efficient manner. The widespread release of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) platform in 2022 has made these tools more accessible to scholars around the world. Despite their tremendous potential, studies have uncovered that large language model (LLM)-based generative AI tools have issues with plagiarism, AI hallucinations, and inaccurate or fabricated references. This raises legitimate concern about the utility, accuracy, and integrity of AI when used to write academic manuscripts. Currently, there is little clear guidance for healthcare simulation scholars outlining the ways that generative AI could be used to legitimately support the production of academic literature. In this paper, we discuss how widely available, LLM-powered generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) can help in the academic writing process. We first explore how academic publishers are positioning the use of generative AI tools and then describe potential issues with using these tools in the academic writing process. Finally, we discuss three categories of specific ways generative AI tools can be used in an ethically sound manner and offer four key principles that can help guide researchers to produce high-quality research outputs with the highest of academic integrity.
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.