ArticleEJIFCC2026
The Ethical Aspects of AI in Scientific Publishing.
Article in EJIFCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Printing allowed the scientific revolution. Scientific journals established peer review. AI is driving the next wave of scientific progress. Ethical aspects of AI in publishing are an emerging area of concern. Key issues: AI tools are used in generating papers. This raises questions about authorship and accountability: who is responsible? If AI contributes, should they be credited as authors? Are researchers accountable for AI-generated content? If AI is involved in writing, this should be disclosed to maintain transparency. Otherwise, there could be concerns about misrepresentation or lack of rigor. Another consequence is intellectual property: if AI generates portions of a paper, who owns the rights to that work? Frameworks for intellectual property were designed for human creators, so these might be rethought. Many journals require a written statement regarding AI use. AI use in publishing could exacerbate inequality in research access, leading to a divide between well-funded and less-funded institutions. Global inequality in science sharpens: AI might skew research toward countries with more technological resources. AI can be used to assist peer review This challenges peer review integrity: relying on AI could undermine the integrity of human oversight. AI does not replace but complements reviewers' expertise. AI-driven tools might lack the nuanced human understanding. Over-reliance on AI could compromise publishing quality. Conclusion: AI offers possibilities to speed up and to improve scientific publishing, but it is essential to judge and to address the ethical implications. This requires guidelines and rules warranting an honest, transparent and integer approach of publishing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41659279PMC12882074What 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.