Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42908681›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2026

Authorship responsibilities of scientists who use AI research agents.

David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini, Robert T Pennock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2026. 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

3 authors.

David B ResnikNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Durham, NC, United States.
Mohammad HosseiniDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.
Robert T PennockSigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) tools capable of performing research independently, which we call AI research agents (AIRAs) is likely to significantly impact how science is planned, performed, reviewed, evaluated, and communicated. However, the expected gains in efficiency and productivity from the deployment of AIRAs should not undermine science's epistemic and ethical values, such as accountability, transparency, reproducibility, and rigor. In this paper, we revisit the AI authorship debate in light of the reported capabilities of AIRAs and argue that these tools do not qualify for authorship because they cannot be held morally responsible for their contributions. We also reject the use of the term "scientist" to refer to these tools and argue that human scientists who use AIRAs have three key authorship responsibilities: (1) to carefully oversee and manage AIRAs; (2) to accurately and appropriately disclose AIRAs' contribution to research; and (3) to be accountable for research involving AIRAs by addressing questions and concerns raised by the scientific community and the public. Finally, we consider some related researcher responsibilities that are topics for future research, including the obligation to monitor, audit, and evaluate the performance of AIRAs and the obligation to address the social, economic, legal, and environmental implications of using AIRAs.

Indexed as

accountabilityAI agentsauthorshipmoral agencypublication ethicsresponsibility

Identifiers

PMID42908681
PMCPMC13683075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.