Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41331701›Full record

ArticleGenomics & informatics2025

Towards a transparent and reproducible AI-assisted research paper writing.

Jeongbin Park

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genomics & informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeongbin ParkSchool of Biomedical Convergence Engineering, Pusan National University, Yangsan, 50612, Republic of Korea. jeongbin.park@pusan.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted scientific writing is now a common practice in academic publishing, yet concerns persist regarding the authenticity and reproducibility of AI-generated content. While AI tools offer significant advantages, particularly for non-native English speakers who face substantial linguistic barriers in scientific communication, the risk of AI hallucinations and fabricated citations threatens the integrity of scholarly discourse. Journals often require disclosure of the entire AI prompt rather than meaningful intellectual contributions, but this is becoming increasingly impractical as AI prompts are getting longer and more complex. In this paper, I argue that transparency in AI-assisted writing should focus on capturing the author's core research perspective and section-specific key points-the foundational elements that drive meaningful scientific communication. To address this challenge, I developed a web-based tool that implements a human-in-the-loop approach requiring authors to define their research perspective and create detailed outlines with key points before any AI text generation occurs. The tool mitigates AI hallucination by only allowing the use of user-provided citations and generating transparency reports documenting the key elements used for text generation. I validated this approach by writing this paper using the tool itself, demonstrating how the transparency reporting method works in practice. This methodology ensures that AI serves as a linguistic tool rather than a content generator, preserving scientific integrity while democratizing access to high-quality academic writing across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

Indexed as

AI-assisted writingLanguage barriersReproducibilityScientific integrityTransparency

Identifiers

PMID41331701
PMCPMC12670809

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.