ArticleGenomics & informatics2025
Towards a transparent and reproducible AI-assisted research paper writing.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From AI anxiety to educational opportunity: equitable and practical uses of artificial intelligence in STEM education.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Correction: Towards a transparent and reproducible AI-assisted research paper writing.Genomics & informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.