ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2026
Proper Utilization of Generative AI in Scholarly Writing: The Researcher and Author Perspective.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Comprehensive Consideration of Ethics in AI-assisted Scientific Writing and Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Toward Structured Transparency: A Governance Framework for AI Use in Biomedical Publishing.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing is expanding rapidly, yet clear standards for its appropriate use and disclosure remain lacking. Surveys indicate that many researchers already use AI tools for manuscript preparation, particularly for writing assistance and error detection. However, attitudes toward acceptable AI use and disclosure requirements remain inconsistent, especially regarding the use of AI in drafting manuscripts and in the peer-review process. Analyses of manuscript submissions to major journal groups suggest that the proportion of authors disclosing AI use is substantially lower than estimates from researcher surveys, indicating possible underreporting or uncertainty about reporting requirements. It is therefore essential to implement standardized frameworks that require explicit disclosure of AI use to ensure transparency and uphold trust in scholarly communication.
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.