Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40519439›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Artificial Intelligence and Publishing Ethics: A Narrative Review and SWOT Analysis.

Pooja Gurnal, Lokesh Rana

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Pooja GurnalAnesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, IND.
Lokesh RanaRadiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI), after surviving two major AI winters (1974-1980 and 1987-2000), is now growing at an exponential rate. This rapid advancement, particularly in its application to medical science and literature, has significantly transformed how research is conducted. The large language tools can produce highly realistic text, enabling diverse tasks with broad applications. In other words, their responses resemble human answers to human questions; however, their malicious use poses serious challenges to scientific research integrity and literature, especially when outputs influence human life, the ethical compass gains more importance than the benefits. This review aims to provide a comprehensive narrative review of AI, in particular the emergence of large language models and their impact on healthcare scientific research, with a focus on the challenges it poses to ethics and scientific integrity. In addition, it aims to discuss the evolving guidelines from various international organizations on authorship, transparency, and the responsible use of AI. Databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched to provide a comprehensive review from the published literature on the emergence of AI in the healthcare research setting, along with its positive and negative impacts on research ethics. We also performed a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis of AI in research publications and evaluated the ethical challenges it poses. Chatbots are AI-based conversational large language models, which are proving to be of significant importance in healthcare education, practice, and research. However, caution needs to be exercised in its malicious fabricated use. Organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, World Association of Medical Editors, Journal of the American Medical Association, and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors state that chatbots do not qualify as co-authors, with only responsible and ethical use of AI being permitted. Caution needs to be exercised at the individual level by academics when they use these tools, and they should be transparent in their disclosure of their use. The advent of Google revolutionized scientific research, and similarly, AI-assisted chatbots represent the next leap forward. Hence, it is crucial to use these tools with caution, accountability, and transparency. Through this narrative review, we aim to guide researchers in understanding new guidelines and approaches to research ethics in this fast-evolving era of AI.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatbotslarge language models (llms)publishing ethicsswot analysis

Identifiers

PMID40519439
PMCPMC12164956

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.