Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are rapidly supplanting human-derived scholarly work in the fast-paced digital age. This necessitates a re-evaluation of our traditional research and publication ethics, which is the focus of this article. We explore the ethical issues that arise when AI chatbots are employed in research and publication. We critically examine the attribution of academic work, strategies for preventing plagiarism, the trustworthiness of AI-generated content, and the integration of empathy into these systems. Current approaches to ethical education, in our opinion, fall short of appropriately addressing these problems. We propose comprehensive initiatives to tackle these emerging ethical concerns. This review also examines the limitations of current chatbot detectors, underscoring the necessity for more sophisticated technology to safeguard academic integrity. The incorporation of AI and chatbots into the research environment is set to transform the way we approach scholarly inquiries. However, our study emphasizes the importance of employing these tools ethically within research and academia. As we move forward, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate on creating robust, flexible strategies and establishing comprehensive regulations that effectively align these potential technological developments with stringent ethical standards. We believe that this is an essential measure to ensure that the advancement of AI chatbots significantly augments the value of scholarly research activities, including publications, rather than introducing potential ethical quandaries.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Generative AI, Research Ethics, and Higher Education Research: Insights from a Scientometric Analysis Saba Mansoor Qadhi, Ahmed Alduais, Youmen Chaaban, Majeda Khraisheh Information.2024; 15(6): 325. CrossRef
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Zafer Kocak Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Research Ethics - A Systematic Review Gabriel Andrade-Hidalgo, Pedro Mio-Cango, Orlando Iparraguirre-Villanueva Journal of Academic Ethics.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Purpose This study aimed to examine the following overarching issues: the current status of research and publication ethics training conducted in Korean academic organizations and what needs to be done to reinforce research and publication ethics training.
Methods A survey with 12 items was examined in a pilot survey, followed by a main survey that was distributed to 2,487 academic organizations. A second survey, which contained six additional questions, was dispatched to the same subjects. The results of each survey were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis, content analysis, and comparative analysis.
Results More than half of the academic organizations provided research and publication ethics training programs, with humanities and social sciences organizations giving more training than the others (χ2=11.190, df=2, P=0.004). The results showed that research and publication ethics training was held mostly once and less than an hour per year, mainly in a lecture format. No significant difference was found in the training content among academic fields. The academic organizations preferred case-based discussion training methods and wanted expert instructors who could give tailored training with examples.
Conclusion A systematic training program that can develop ethics instructors tailored to specific academic fields and financial support from academic organizations can help scholarly editors resolve the apparent gap between the real and the ideal in ethics training, and ultimately to achieve the competency needed to train their own experts.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 12. CrossRef
With the goal of improving the publishing ecosystem and promoting transparency in journal publishing, we describe some recent cases in scientific publishing in Korea. The current article summarizes ethical inquiries from domestic journals and publishers, most of whom are members of the Korean Council of Science Editors. We selected 15 representative questions asked during the last 4 years. Those inquiries were classified into hot topics such as plagiarism, duplicate publications, multiple submission, and others (informed consent, copyright, compliance with journal regulations, authors’ responsibilities, and voluntary retraction requests). When plagiarism is suspected, editors and reviewers should assess the situation following the relevant rules and procedures, and if necessary, the manuscript should be rejected. Cases of duplicate publication should be clearly stated in both papers based on the explicit agreement of the editor-in-chief of both journals. As a general rule, the entire content of an article should be published in one issue, but if the article is too long, it may need to be published in two issues. Permission from both journals is required. The abstract and references should be separated accordingly. In cases of copyright conflict, voluntary withdrawal of a paper, or non-compliance with publishing regulations, the manuscript must be withdrawn according to specific procedures (referring to the COPE flow chart). All correspondence regarding a manuscript should be with the corresponding author, who communicates directly with the journal. We hope that these recommendations will help readers in the field of scientific publishing to address issues related to publication ethics.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance Sun Huh Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance Sun Huh Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Purpose The “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” are of increasing importance in an open science environment as a way to increase the transparency and quality of academic society journals. However, little previous research has investigated the application of this new guideline in practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree to which this guideline is being applied by Korean academic society– published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports.
Methods The researchers investigated the homepages of 59 Korean academic society– published journals to evaluate whether they had adopted the 33 items listed in the guideline. Based on the information available on the journals’ homepages, each item was classified as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ within the four categories of basic journal information, publication ethics, copyright and archiving information, and profit model.
Results The basic journal information category was generally well-practiced, with the exceptions of the peer review process, readership, and author fees. The copyright and licensing information category was also well-practiced, with the exception of policies on posting accepted articles with third parties and archiving items. However, most items in the publication ethics category were not well practiced, with the exception of authorship and intellectual property. All items in the profit model category were infrequently implemented.
Conclusion These findings serve as a good indicator for Korean journal editors of areas for improvement. It may be helpful to review journals’ publication policies and homepages to comply with international publishing standards.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: A Critical Analysis Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Salim Moussa ETHICS IN PROGRESS.2024; 15(1): 130. CrossRef
The Application of Open Science Potentials in Research Processes: A Comprehensive Literature Review Maryam Zarghani, Leila Nemati-Anaraki, Shahram Sedghi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Anisa Rowhani-Farid Libri.2023; 73(2): 167. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance Sun Huh Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Marking the inclusion of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing in PubMed Central and strategies to be promoted to a top-tier journal in the nursing category Sun Huh Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2022; 28(3): 165. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef
The Journal Citation Indicator has arrived for Emerging Sources Citation Index journals, including the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, in June 2021 Sun Huh Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2021; 18: 20. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018 Sun Huh Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef
Purpose Four international associations, including the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the World Association of Medical Editors declared the third version of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” to ensure transparency and quality in journal publications. This study is aimed at assessing the guidelines from the journals’ websites manually.
Methods In this study, three researchers investigate the homepages of 781 academic society-published journals that are registered in the Science Citation Index Expanded and whether these journals are effectively adopting these new guidelines. In this paper, 33 items from the guidelines are examined. The 33 items are rearranged into four different categories: basic journal information; publication ethics; copyright and archiving information; and profit model. The researchers count yes or no after checking the adopting status on the journal homepage and dividing into four scales: 0% to 25% for is rarely practiced, 26% to 50% for is poorly practiced, 51% to 75% for is adequately practiced, and 76% to 100% for is well practiced.
Results Of the 33 items, 10 are found to be poorly or rarely practiced, including readership, data sharing, archiving policies, and profit model information.
Conclusion It could be the most up-to-date indicator of the current status of applying best practice guidelines. Society journal editors especially from Asia should evaluate their journals regarding “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing”.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Opening up to the open data Prakash K. Dubey Journal of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences.2024; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: A Critical Analysis Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Salim Moussa ETHICS IN PROGRESS.2024; 15(1): 130. CrossRef
Prestige of scholarly book publishers—An investigation into criteria, processes, and practices across countries Eleonora Dagienė Research Evaluation.2023; 32(2): 356. CrossRef
The use of data repositories in dermatology Umer Nadir, Loma Dave, Michael D. Yi, Farhana Ikmal Hisham, Murad Alam Archives of Dermatological Research.2023; 315(6): 1851. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
Cumplimiento de Estándares Internacionales en Publicaciones Arbitradas Académicas Mexicanas y Guatemaltecas Humberto Emilio Aguilera Arévalo Revista Académica Sociedad del Conocimiento Cunzac.2022; 2(1): 89. CrossRef
Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals Brian Jackson Publications.2021; 9(2): 25. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef
The Journal Citation Indicator has arrived for Emerging Sources Citation Index journals, including the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, in June 2021 Sun Huh Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2021; 18: 20. CrossRef
Changes in bibliographic information associated with Korean scientific journals from 2011 to 2019 Yoon Joo Seo, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 11. CrossRef
Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in Korean academic society-published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports
Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 24. CrossRef
Position of Ultrasonography in the scholarly journal network based on bibliometrics and developmental strategies for it to become a top-tier journal Sun Huh Ultrasonography.2020; 39(3): 238. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018 Sun Huh Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef
Recent trends in medical journals’ data sharing policies and statements of data availability Sun Huh Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(06): 493. CrossRef