KCSE
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Review
- Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
- Sang-Jun Kim
- Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):96-106. Published online August 20, 2024
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.343
- 34,715 View
- 1,456 Download
- 22 Web of Science
- 23 Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF - While generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology has become increasingly competitive since OpenAI introduced ChatGPT, its widespread use poses significant ethical challenges in research. Excessive reliance on tools like ChatGPT may intensify ethical concerns in scholarly articles. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive narrative review of the ethical issues associated with using AI in academic writing and to inform researchers of current trends. Our methodology involved a detailed examination of literature on ChatGPT and related research trends. We conducted searches in major databases to identify additional relevant articles and cited literature, from which we collected and analyzed papers. We identified major issues from the literature, categorized into problems faced by authors using nonacademic AI platforms in writing and challenges related to the detection and acceptance of AI-generated content by reviewers and editors. We explored eight specific ethical problems highlighted by authors and reviewers and conducted a thorough review of five key topics in research ethics. Given that nonacademic AI platforms like ChatGPT often do not disclose their training data sources, there is a substantial risk of unattributed content and plagiarism. Therefore, researchers must verify the accuracy and authenticity of AI-generated content before incorporating it into their article, ensuring adherence to principles of research integrity and ethics, including avoidance of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
- Understanding haze data contestations in Singapore: between accuracy and affect
Nurul Amillin Hussain
Environmental Sociology.2026; 12(1): 126. CrossRef - Generative AI in academia: Efficiency versus scholarship
Daniela Schnitzler
The Journal of Physiology.2026; 604(1): 31. CrossRef - A Cross‐Disciplinary Analysis of AI Policies in Academic Peer Review
Zhongshi Wang, Mengyue Gong
Learned Publishing.2026;[Epub] CrossRef - AI detecting AI in academic writing: Why most AI detector findings are false
Panagiotis Tsigaris, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Next Research.2026; : 101396. CrossRef - Human-AI collaboration in vocational writing: Building a framework for adaptive English learning
Şükran Türkmen Çiçek, Dilek Tüfekci Can
Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning.2026; 9(1): 45. CrossRef - Aligning Generative AI with Higher Education Workflows: Indonesian Lecturers’ Anxiety–Satisfaction Profiles and Adoption Patterns
Muhammad Zaim, Safnil Arsyad, Budi Waluyo, An Fauzia Rozani Syafei, Ratmanida, Rifqi Aulia Zaim
Education Sciences.2026; 16(2): 271. CrossRef - The future of scholarly communication: rethinking peer review and editorial roles in the digital age
Jacob Oppong Nkansah, Edward Kwabena Ameyaw, Padmore Adusei Amoah
Research Evaluation.2026;[Epub] CrossRef - Generative artificial intelligence tools in journal article preparation: A preliminary catalog of ethical considerations, opportunities, and pitfalls
Robin R. White
JDS Communications.2025; 6(3): 452. CrossRef - Ethics For Responsible Data Research: Integrating Cybersecurity Perspectives In Digital Era
Sheetal Temara
SSRN Electronic Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis
Adéle da Veiga
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 28. CrossRef - Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use
Adam Cheng, Aaron Calhoun, Gabriel Reedy
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - Exploring AI Hallucinations of ChatGPT
Adam Cheng, Vikhashni Nagesh, Susan Eller, Vincent Grant, Yiqun Lin
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.2025; 20(6): 413. CrossRef - Research trends and comparisons of major generative artificial intelligence platforms for systematic literature reviews
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 200. CrossRef - Are Teachers Assessing Work Written by Students or by AI? A Rapid Literature Review of Research on Detecting Content Generated by Generative AI
Jining Han, Yuying Yang, Geping Liu
European Journal of Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - Applications of artificial intelligence in healthcare simulation: a model of thinking
Adam Cheng, Carolyn McGregor
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - ¿Cómo está transformando la inteligencia artificial la comunicación científica? Desafíos, oportunidades y el papel de los actores involucrados: una revisión de alcance
Jairo Buitrago-Ciro, Estela Morales Campos, César Leonardo Villamizar Romero
Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información.2025; 39(104): 111. CrossRef - ChatGPT: how to use it and the pitfalls/cautions in academia
Jeong-Moo Lee
Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism.2025; 30(5): 229. CrossRef - Initial Validation of the IMPACT Model: Technological Appropriation of ChatGPT by University Faculty
Luz-M. Pereira-González, Andrea Basantes-Andrade, Miguel Naranjo-Toro, Mailevy Guia-Pereira
Education Sciences.2025; 15(11): 1520. CrossRef - The Epistemic Downside of Using LLM-Based Generative AI in Academic Writing
Bor Luen Tang
Publications.2025; 13(4): 63. CrossRef - Ethical Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Linguistics Journal Publishing: Combining Hybrid Thematic Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis
Xuan Wang, Xinyi Zhang
Publications.2025; 13(4): 61. CrossRef - Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Intellectual Property Creation: Authorship, Ownership and Responsibility Issues
K. Afuwape
Journal of Digital Technologies and Law.2025; 3(4): 677. CrossRef - How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
Kayvan Kousha
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7959. CrossRef - Appliances of Generative AI-Powered Language Tools in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2024; 10(4): 5. CrossRef
- Understanding haze data contestations in Singapore: between accuracy and affect
Original Article
- Current status and demand for educational activities on publication ethics by academic organizations in Korea: a descriptive study
- Yera Hur, Cheol-Heui Yun
- Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):64-70. Published online February 16, 2023
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.298
- 5,811 View
- 240 Download
- 1 Web of Science
- 1 Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF
Supplementary Material - 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
- Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics
Review
- Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?
- Ju Yoen Lee
- Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):7-12. Published online February 16, 2023
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.292
- 12,650 View
- 526 Download
- 11 Web of Science
- 18 Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF
- At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by- Locating the Ethics of ChatGPT—Ethical Issues as Affordances in AI Ecosystems
Bernd Carsten Stahl
Information.2025; 16(2): 104. CrossRef - Interpreting text corpora from androids-related stories using large language models: “Machines like me” by Ian McEwan in generative AI
Simona-Vasilica Oprea, Adela Bâra
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - And Plato met ChatGPT: an ethical reflection on the use of chatbots in scientific research writing, with a particular focus on the social sciences
Reyes Calderon, Francisco Herrera
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - Responses to the Initial Hype: ChatGPT Supporting Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship?
Berrin Cefa, Felicitas Macgilchrist, Hebatullah ElGamal, John Y. H. Bai, Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Frank S. Loglo
Open Praxis.2025; 17(2): 227. CrossRef - How appropriately can generative artificial intelligence platforms, including GPT-4, Gemini, Bing, and Wrtn, answer questions about colon cancer in the Korean language?
Sun Huh
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(3): 190. CrossRef - A Study of Academics’ Perceptions of Ethical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Scientific Research and Publishing
Perihan Elif Ekmekci, Banu Buruk, Başak Akar, Nazife Yasemin Ardıçoğlu Akışın
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.2025; 20(4): 190. CrossRef - AI-Assisted Works: Copyrightability in the United States, China, and the EU, and Implications for Academic Integrity
Mariusz Krzysztofek
Review of European and Comparative Law.2025;[Epub] CrossRef - ChatGPT: More Than a “Weapon of Mass Deception” Ethical Challenges and Responses from the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) Perspective
Alejo José G. Sison, Marco Tulio Daza, Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela, Eduardo C. Garrido-Merchán
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.2024; 40(17): 4853. CrossRef - The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology
Bernd Carsten Stahl, Damian Eke
International Journal of Information Management.2024; 74: 102700. CrossRef - ChatGPT in healthcare: A taxonomy and systematic review
Jianning Li, Amin Dada, Behrus Puladi, Jens Kleesiek, Jan Egger
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine.2024; 245: 108013. CrossRef - “Brave New World” or not?: A mixed-methods study of the relationship between second language writing learners’ perceptions of ChatGPT, behaviors of using ChatGPT, and writing proficiency
Li Dong
Current Psychology.2024; 43(21): 19481. CrossRef - Evaluating the Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Scholarly Research: A Study Focused on Academics
Tosin Ekundayo, Zafarullah Khan, Sabiha Nuzhat, Tze Wei Liew
Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Interaction with Artificial Intelligence as a Potential of Foreign Language Teaching Program in Graduate School
T. V. Potemkina, Yu. A. Avdeeva, U. Yu. Ivanova
Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia.2024; 33(5): 67. CrossRef - Did ChatGPT ask or agree to be a (co)author? ChatGPT authorship reflects the wider problem of inappropriate authorship practices
Bor Luen Tang
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 93. CrossRef - Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1. CrossRef - ChatGPT: Systematic Review, Applications, and Agenda for Multidisciplinary Research
Harjit Singh, Avneet Singh
Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies.2023; 21(2): 193. CrossRef - Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: a review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer
Casey Watters, Michal K. Lemanski
Frontiers in Big Data.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - ChatGPT, yabancı dil öğrencisinin güvenilir yapay zekâ sohbet arkadaşı mıdır?
Şule ÇINAR YAĞCI, Tugba AYDIN YILDIZ
RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi.2023; (37): 1315. CrossRef
- Locating the Ethics of ChatGPT—Ethical Issues as Affordances in AI Ecosystems
First
Prev
