Abstract
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as generative AI became more common, its use in academic settings also gained more popularity. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an AI powered chatbot developed by OpenAI. It has many benefits for scholarly publishing. However, ChatGPT and related technologies have been identified as disruptive innovations with the potential to revolutionize academia and scholarly publishing (Haque et al., 2022). ChatGPT can only benefit authors when used responsibly. There are certainly ethical issues with using ChatGPT for scholarly publishing. First of all, authorship is a major concern. There are questions about the ownership of the work generated by ChatGPT (Schönberger, 2018). Besides, there may be concerns about copyright as well. When using ChatGPT, users may find it challenging to ensure that quotes, data, or other materials from external sources comply with copyright laws and receive proper attribution (Gillotte, 2019). When the language models are trained on a massive amount of data from unknown sources, it is almost impossible to track the original source. As a result, plagiarism may arise from using ChatGPT. It is not limited to copyrighted text, but also includes paraphrasing, methods, graphics, ideas, and any other product of intelligence that belongs to another person (Gasparyan et al., 2017). With the issues raised above, it is necessary to examine the current state of transparency regarding the use of generative AI in scholarly publishing.
References
Baeza-Yates, R. (2022). Ethical challenges in AI. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining 15, 1-2.
Carpenter, T. A. (2023). Thoughts on AI’s impact on scholarly communication? An interview with ChatGPT. Scholarly Kitchen blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/11/chatgpt-thoughts-on-ais-impact-on-scholarly-communications/ (accessed 16 July 2024).
COPE. (2023). COPE position statement. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author (accessed 22 July 2024).
Davis. P. (2023). Did ChatGPT just lie to me? Scholarly Kitchen blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/13/did-chatgpt-just-lie-to-me/ (accessed 16 July 2024).
De Waard, A. (2023). Guest post- AI and scholarly publishing: A view from three experts. Scholarly Kitchen blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/18/guest-post-ai-and-scholarly-publishing-a-view-from-three-experts/ (accessed 16 July 2024).
Elsevier. (2024). The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#4-duties-of-authors (accessed 15 March 2024).
Elsevier. (2024a). The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in figures, images and artwork. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#4-duties-of-authors (accessed 15 March 2024).
Elsevier. (2024b). The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal editorial process. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#2-duties-of-editors (accessed 15 March 2024).
Elsevier. (2024c). The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#3-duties-of-reviewers (accessed 15 March 2024).
Emerald. (2023). Author responsibilities. https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/dta?distinct_id=%24device%3A18cf447c183c48-05149c93da12d1-4c657b58-1fa400-18cf447c183c48&_gl=1*10o6jfa*_ga*MTMyNDIyNDI5Mi4xNzA0OTA1Mzkz*_ga_45RWY1YP1V*MTcwNDkxMTQ0NC4yLjEuMTcwNDkxMTk5NC4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.174953122.1870403507.1704905393-1324224292.1704905393#author-guidelines (accessed 15 March 2024).
Gasparyan, A. Y., Nurmashev, B., Seksenbayev, B., Trukhachev, V. I., Kostyukova, E. I. & Kitas, G. D. (2017). Plagiarism in the context of education and evolving detection strategies. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(8):1220-1227.
Gilat, R. & Cole, B. J. (2023). How will artificial intelligence affect scientific writing, reviewing and editing? The future is here. Arthroscopy, 39(5): 1119-1120.
Gillotte, J. L. (2019). Copyright infringement in ai-generated artworks. UC Davis Law Review 53: 2655-2676.
Haque, M. U., Dharmadasa, I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse, R. N. & Ahmad, H. (2022). "I think this is the most disruptive technology": Exploring sentiments of ChatGPT early adopters using Twitter data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05856: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.05856
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M. & Resnik, D. B. (2023). Using AI to write scholarly publications. Accountability in Research:1-9.
Informa UK Limited. (2024). AI-based tools and technologies for content generation. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/editorial-policies/defining-authorship-research-paper/ (accessed 15 March 2024).
Informa UK Limited. (2024a). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/reviewer-guidelines/ (accessed 15 March 2024).
Informa UK Limited. (2024b). Journal editor code of conduct. https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/welcome-to-tf/policies-guidelines/editor-code-of-conduct/ (accessed 15 March 2024).
JAMA. (2023). Instruction for authors. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors (accessed 22 July 2024).
Jiao. W., Wang, W., Huang, J., Wang, X. & Tu, Z. (2023). Is ChatGPT a good translator? A preliminary study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08745, 1(10) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.08745
Johns Hopkins University Press. (2023). Generative AI policy for authors. https://www.press.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/media/2023/07/Generative%20AI%20for%20Authors_final_0.pdf (accessed 15 March 2024).
Kaltenbrunner. W., Pinfield, S., Waltman, L., Woods, H. B. & Brumberg, J. (2022). Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: An analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities. Journal of Documentation, 78(7): 429-229.
Kendrick, C. L. (2023). Guest post- the efficacy of ChatGPT: Is it time for the librarians to go home? Scholarly Kitchen blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/26/guest-post-the-efficacy-of-chatgpt-is-it-time-for-the-librarians-to-go-home/ (accessed 16 July 2024).
Liu, G. & Yang, L. (2019). Popular research topics in the recent journal publications of library and information science. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(3), 278-287. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.04.001 (accessed 04 March 2025).
Lund, B. D. & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40(3): 26-29.
Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G. & Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 165(5): 422-445.
Nature. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1 (accessed 22 July 2024).
Nixon, J. M. (2014). Core journals in library and information science: Developing a methodology for ranking LIS journals. College & Research Libraries, 75(1):66-90.
OpenAI. (2024). OpenAI about page. https://openai.com/about/ (accessed 16 July 2024).
Perkins, M. & Roe, J. (2024). Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis. F1000Research 12: 1398.
Sage. (2024). ChatGPT and generative AI. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/chatgpt-and-generative-ai-0 (accessed 15 March 2024).
Santini, A. (2018). The importance of referencing. The Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 4(1): 3-4.
Schönberger, D. (2018). Deep copyright: Up- and downstream questions related to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3098315 (accessed 15 March 2024).
Stokel-Walker, C. & Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614 (7947): 214-216.
Tang, A., Li, K., Kwok, K., Cao, L., Luong, S. & Tam, W. (2024). The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 56: 314-318.
University of Pittsburgh * University Library System (n.d.). Generative AI submissions. https://jmla.mlanet.org/ojs/jmla/AIsubmissionpolicy (accessed 15 March 2024).
University of Toronto Press. (2024). Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. https://utpjournals.press/resources/editorial-policies#_ai (accessed 15 March 2024).
Weerts, G. (2024). Guest post- Hanging in the balance: Generative AI versus scholarly publishing. Scholarly Kitchen blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/01/08/guest-post-hanging-in-the-balance-generative-ai-versus-scholarly-publishing/ (accessed 22 July 2024).
Wiley. (2023). Artificial Intelligence generated content. https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html (accessed 15 March 2024).
Shlomit, Y. R. (2017). Generating Rembrandt: Artificial intelligence, copyright, and accountability in the 3A Era: The human-like authors are already here. Michigan State Law Review, 659-726.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Librarianship