International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Research Publication: A Scoping Review

Document Type : Review Article

Authors
1 Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
3 Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran
5 Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract
Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in research and scientific publishing, improving efficiency. However, it raises ethical concerns regarding scientific integrity, authorship, and originality. This study aimed to identify the main ethical challenges of AI use in research publishing and to explore factors influencing its responsible use.

Methods
This scoping review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. The review addressed two questions on the ethical challenges associated with AI use in research publishing and the factors influencing its ethical application. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, supplemented by additional searches. Studies eligible for inclusion were original research articles published up to January 2025 with accessible full texts. Two reviewers independently screened the records and charted the data; disagreements were resolved through consultation with a third reviewer. Extracted data included study characteristics, aims, design, and key findings.

Results
The search retrieved 20 952 records, of which 20 were included after screening. The analysis identified 10 key ethical challenges for the use of AI in research publishing, which broadly relate to three overarching concerns: threats to scientific integrity, challenges to transparency and accountability in AI-assisted research processes, and governance gaps in policy and regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, factors influencing ethical AI use were grouped into 10 dimensions across individual, institutional, and structural levels that shape researchers’ behavior and publishing practices.

Conclusion
The responsible use of AI in scientific publishing requires a shift from ad hoc approaches to an integrated ethical, technical, and legal governance system. Since health policies and clinical guidelines rely on published evidence, the ethical integration of AI in scientific publishing is essential to ensure the reliability and transparency of health research. This study highlights the necessity of developing policies, regulatory frameworks, and ethical standards in this area.

Keywords

1.               Mijwil MM, Hiran KK, Doshi R, Dadhich M, Al-Mistarehi AH, Bala I. ChatGPT and the future of academic integrity in the artificial intelligence era: A new frontier. Al-Salam Journal for Engineering and Technology. 2023;2(2):116-127. doi:10.55145/ajest.2023.02.02.015
2.               Park SH. Use of generative artificial intelligence, including large language models such as ChatGPT, in scientific publications: policies of KJR and prominent authorities. Korean J Radiol. 2023;24(8):715. doi:10.3348/kjr.2023.0643
3.               Currie GM. Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: is ChatGPT hype, hero or heresy? Semin Nucl Med. 2023;53(5):719-730. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008
4.               Morocco-Clarke A, Sodangi FA, Momodu F. The implications and effects of ChatGPT on academic scholarship and authorship: a death knell for original academic publications? Information & Communications Technology Law. 2024;33(1):21-41. doi:10.1080/13600834.2023.2239623
5.               Kurian N, Cherian J, Sudharson N, Varghese K, Wadhwa S. AI is now everywhere. Br Dent J. 2023;234(2):72. doi:10.1038/s41415-023-5461-1
6.               Lee PY, Salim H, Abdullah A, Teo CH. Use of ChatGPT in medical research and scientific writing. Malays Fam Physician. 2023;18:58. doi:10.51866/cm0006
7.               Mishra T, Sutanto E, Rossanti R, et al. Use of large language models as artificial intelligence tools in academic research and publishing among global clinical researchers. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):31672. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81370-6
8.               Wu T, He S, Liu J, et al. A Brief Overview of ChatGPT: The History, Status Quo, and Potential Future Development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica. 2023;10(5):1122-1136. doi:10.1109/JAS.2023.123618
9.               Sousa G. Natural language processing and its applications in e-business. Cadernos de Investigação do Mestrado em Negócio Eletrónico. 2022;2(1). doi:10.56002/ceos.0070_cimne_1_2
10.           LeCun Y. Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research: Transforming Data Analysis and Discovery. International Journal of Innovative Computer Science and IT Research. 2025;1(1):1-9. doi:10.63665/ijicsitr.v1i01.01
11.           Jeong J, Kim S, Pan L, et al. Reducing the workload of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence: a narrative review. Medicine. 2025;104(6):e41470. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000041470
12.           Yurchenko V, Nalyvaiko O. How ChatGPT shapes a new reality of writing: Is there a place for humans in an artificial world? Educational Challenges. 2025;30(1):138-155. doi:10.34142/2709-7986.2025.30.1.09
13.           Mohamed YA, Mohamed AH, Kannan A, Bashir M, Adiel MA, Elsadig MA. Navigating the ethical terrain of AI-generated text tools: a review. IEEE Access. 2024;12:197061-197120. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3521945
14.           Willie MM. Identifying AI-Generated Research Papers: Methods and Considerations: Methods and Considerations. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary. 2024;4(2):736-769. doi:10.52970/grdis.v4i2.489
15.           Alves JG, Procianoy R. Ethics and integrity in scientific publishing. Rev Bras Saude Mater Infant. 2025;25:e20250052. doi:10.1590/1806-9304202500000052-en
16.           Kavic MS. Scientific integrity and publishing ethics. JSLS. 2009;13(2):123.
17.           Zhaksylyk A, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Kocyigit BF. Research integrity: where we are and where we are heading. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38(47):e405. doi:10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405
18.           Sabbaghan S, Eaton SE. Navigating the ethical frontier: graduate students’ experiences with generative AI-mediated scholarship. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2025;35(4):1860-1886. doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00454-6
19.           Bhargava HK, Brown S, Ghose A, Gupta A, Leidner D, Wu D. Exploring generative AI’s impact on research: Perspectives from senior scholars in management information systems. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems. 2025;16(2):1-9. doi:10.1145/3721846
20.           Elbadawi M, Li H, Basit AW, Gaisford S. The role of artificial intelligence in generating original scientific research. Int J Pharm. 2024;652:123741. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.123741
21.           Fleckenstein J, Meyer J, Jansen T, Keller SD, Köller O, Möller J. Do teachers spot AI? Evaluating the detectability of AI-generated texts among student essays. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2024;6:100209. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100209
22.           Miao J, Thongprayoon C, Suppadungsuk S, Garcia Valencia OA, Qureshi F, Cheungpasitporn W. Ethical dilemmas in using AI for academic writing and an example framework for peer review in nephrology academia: a narrative review. Clin Pract. 2024;14(1):89-105. doi:10.3390/clinpract14010008
23.           Sysoyev P. Ethics and AI-plagiarism in an academic environment: students’ understanding of compliance with author’s ethics and the problem of plagiarism in the process of interaction with generative artificial intelligence. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2024;33(2):31-53. doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-2-31-53
24.           Kacena MA, Plotkin LI, Fehrenbacher JC. The use of artificial intelligence in writing scientific review articles. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2024;22(1):115-121. doi:10.1007/s11914-023-00852-0
25.           Li J, Zong H, Wu E, et al. Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance the writing of English academic papers by non-native English-speaking medical students educational application of ChatGPT. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):736. doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05738-y
26.           Hwang SI, Lim JS, Lee RW, et al. Is ChatGPT a “Fire of Prometheus” for non-native English-speaking researchers in academic writing? Korean J Radiol. 2023;24(10):952. doi:10.3348/kjr.2023.0773
27.           Reddy GP, Kumar YP, Prakash KP, eds. Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs). 2024 IEEE Open Conference of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Sciences (eStream); 2024. doi:10.1109/eStream61684.2024.10542617
28.           Ugwu NF, Igbinlade AS, Ochiaka RE, et al. Clarifying ethical dilemmas in using artificial intelligence in research writing: a rapid review. Higher Learning Research Communications. 2024;14(2):29-47. doi:10.18870/hlrc.v14i1.1549
29.           Dadkhah M, Oermann MH, Hegedüs M, Raman R, Dávid LD. Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis. 2023;10(4):390-397. doi:10.1515/dx-2023-0090
30.           Sodangi U, Isma’il A. Responsible integration of generative artificial intelligence in academic writing: a narrative review and synthesis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Neural Network. 2025;5(2):13-23. doi:10.55529/jaimlnn.52.13.23
31.           Cardenuto JP, Moreira D, Rocha A. Unveiling scientific articles from paper mills with provenance analysis. PloS One. 2024;19(10):e0312666. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312666
32.           Dombek A. Etyka A Sztuczna Inteligencja (Ethics and artificial intelligence: contradiction or coherence?). Pedagogical Science and Education of the XXI Century. 2025;(4):134-142. doi:10.35619/pse.vi4.104
33.           Moyano MAG. The AI revolution: a posthumanist reading of the (re)presentations of artificial intelligence in selected contemporary films. Proceedings of International Seminar Enrichment of Career by Knowledge of Language and Literature. 2024;12(1):6-23. doi:10.25139/eckll.v12i1.9598
34.           Dodig-Crnkovic G, Basti G, Holstein T. Delegating Responsibilities to Intelligent Autonomous Systems: Challenges and Benefits. J Bioeth Inq. 2025;22:507-514. doi:10.1007/s11673-025-10428-5
35.           Shanker B. Neyigapula: ethical considerations in AI development: balancing autonomy and accountability. J Adv Artif Intell. 2024;2(1):138-148. doi:10.18178/JAAI.2024.2.1.138-148
36.           Bertoncini ALC, Serafim MC. Ethical content in artificial intelligence systems: A demand explained in three critical points. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1074787. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1074787
37.           Blagojević B. Raising Skynet: Moral Status of AI and Perspectives of Teaching Ethics to AI. AM Journal of Art and Media Studies. 2025;(36). doi:10.25038/am.v0i28.616
38.           Limongi R. The use of artificial intelligence in scientific research with integrity and ethics. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies. 2024;16(1):e845. doi:10.24023/FutureJournal/2175-5825/2024.v16i1.845
39.           Kocak Z. Publication ethics in the era of artificial intelligence. J Korean Med Sci. 2024;39(33):e249. doi:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e249
40.           Doskaliuk B, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Klishch I, Yatsyshyn R. Artificial intelligence in peer review: enhancing efficiency while preserving integrity. J Korean Med Sci. 2025;40(7):e92. doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92
41.           Ragel R. Embracing AI in scholarly publishing: Enhancing integrity and expanding access. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. 2025;53(1). doi:10.4038/jnsfsr.v53i1.12647
42.           Fettiplace MR, Bhatia A, Chen Y, et al. Recommendations for disclosure of artificial intelligence in scientific writing and publishing: a regional anesthesia and pain medicine modified Delphi study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2026;51(6):603-610. doi:10.1136/rapm-2025-106852
43.           Hryciw BN, Seely AJ, Kyeremanteng K. Guiding principles and proposed classification system for the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific writing in medicine. Front Artif Intell. 2023;6:1283353. doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1283353
44.           Suchikova Y, Tsybuliak N, Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S. GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing. Account Res. 2026;33(3):2544331. doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2544331
45.           Sharma D. Artificial intelligence as an equaliser: How ChatGPT empowers academics in the Global South. Trop Doct. 2025;56(1):6-8. doi:10.1177/00494755251369621
46.           Salih MHB, Gul T, Bukhari SS, Liaqat I, Majeed A. AI-enhanced scholarly communication: transforming peer review, knowledge dissemination, and academic publishing workflows in the digital era. SSRN. 2025. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5412774
47.           Nosratzehi M, Nosratzehi S, Keikha M. Beyond recommendations: expanding the ethical discourse on AI-assisted academic writing. Adv Simul (Lond). 2025;10(1):31. doi:10.1186/s41077-025-00362-2
48.           Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
49.           Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
50.           Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
51.           Peters MD, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):263. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3
52.           Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953-968. doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00242.
53.           Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information. 2018;34(4):285-291.doi:10.3233/EFI-180221
54.           Resnik DB, Hosseini M. The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool. AI Ethics. 2025;5(2):1499-1521. doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8
55.           Da Veiga A. Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis. Science Editing. 2025;12(1):28-34. doi:10.6087/kcse.352
56.           Lei F, Du L, Wang W, Dong M, Liu X. Effect of generative artificial intelligence on academic publishing ethics: The role of user agreements. J Inf Sci. 2025. doi:10.1177/01655515251359771
57.           Farangi MR, Nejadghanbar H, Hu G. Use of generative AI in research: ethical considerations and emotional experiences. Ethics Behav. 2025;35(7):527-543. doi:10.1080/10508422.2024.2420133
58.           Agbor UI, Duke OO, Obaji-Akpet IO, et al. Artificial intelligence and academic research: Understanding the potential and the threats to academic writing. Ianna Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 2024;6(2):33-52. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11120274
59.           Chetwynd E. Ethical use of artificial intelligence for scientific writing: current trends. J Hum Lact. 2024;40(2):211-215. doi:10.1177/08903344241235160
60.           Giray L, Jacob J, Gumalin DL. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of using ChatGPT in scientific research. International Journal of Technology in Education. 2024;7(1):40-58. doi:10.46328/ijte.618
61.           Akila S, Mohanbabu B. Traversing the Ethical Terrain of AI: A Conceptual Framework for Practicing Research and Publication in the AI Era. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. 2024;7(4):19-26. doi:10.54392/ajir2443
62.           Lund BD, Naheem KT. Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of artificial intelligence authorship policies in top academic journals. Learn Publ. 2024;37(1):13-21. doi:10.1002/leap.1582
63.           Lehr SA, Caliskan A, Liyanage S, Banaji MR. ChatGPT as a research scientist: Probing GPT’s capabilities as a research librarian, research ethicist, data generator, and data predictor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(35):e2404328121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2404328121
64.           Sobaih AE. Ethical concerns for using artificial intelligence chatbots in research and publication: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching. 2024;7(1):93-103. doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.21
65.           Akpur A. Exploring The Potential And Limitations of ChatGPT in Academic Writing and Editorial Tasks. Firat University Journal of Social Sciences. 2024;34(1):177-186. doi:10.18069/firatsbed.1299700
66.           Pinchuk O, Malytska I. Responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence in research and publishing. Information Technologies and Learning Tools. 2024;100(2):180-198. doi:10.33407/itlt.v100i2.5676
67.           Moffatt B, Hall A. Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing. Account Res. 2025;32(8):1313-1329. doi:10.1080/08989621.2024.2386285
68.           Hosseini M, Resnik DB, Holmes K. The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Res Ethics. 2023;19(4):449-465. doi:10.1177/17470161231180449
69.           Baloğlu G, Çakalı KR. Is Artificial Intelligence a new threat to the academic ethics?: Enron scandal revisited by ChatGPT. İşletme. 2023;4(1):143-165. doi:10.57116/isletme.1244633
70.           Bahammam AS, Trabelsi K, Pandi-Perumal SR, Jahrami H. Adapting to the impact of artificial intelligence in scientific writing: Balancing benefits and drawbacks while developing policies and regulations. Journal of Nature and Science of Medicine. 2023;6(3):152-158. doi:10.4103/jnsm.jnsm_89_23
71.           Ryan M, Stahl BC. Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. 2021;19(1):61-86. doi:10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0138
72.           Hagendorff T. The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines. 2020;30(1):99-120. doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
73.           Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):75. doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
74.           Májovský M, Černý M, Kasal M, Komarc M, Netuka D. Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: Pandora’s box has been opened. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25(1):e46924. doi:10.2196/46924
75.           Chen Z, Chen C, Yang G, et al. Research integrity in the era of artificial intelligence: Challenges and responses. Medicine. 2024;103(27):e38811. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000038811
76.           Knoechel TD, Schweizer KJ, Acar OA, et al. Core principles of responsible generative AI Usage in research. AI Ethics. 2025;5:6371-6377. doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00768-8
77.           Kumari K, Pegoraro A, Fereidooni H, Sadeghi AR. DEMASQ: Unmasking the ChatGPT WordSmith. arXiv [preprint]. 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.05019
78.           Li J. Security implications of AI chatbots in health care. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e47551. doi:10.2196/47551
79.           King J, Klyman K, Capstick E, Saade T, Hsieh V. User privacy and large language models: An analysis of frontier developers’ privacy policies. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 2025;8(2):1465-1477. doi:10.1609/aies.v8i2.36646
80.           Shanmugarasa Y, Pan S, Ding M, Zhao D, Rakotoarivelo T. Privacy Meets Explainability: Managing Confidential Data and Transparency Policies in LLM-Empowered Science. Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2025;448:1-8. doi:10.1145/3706599.3720099
81.           Khan AA, Badshah S, Liang P, et al. Ethics of AI: A systematic literature review of principles and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering; 2022; Gothenburg, Sweden.  doi:10.1145/3530019.3531329
82.           Resnik DB, Shamoo AE. The Singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res. 2011;18(2):71-75. doi:10.1080/08989621.2011.557296
83.           ALLEA. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition. Berlin: ALLEA; 2023. doi:10.26356/ECOC 

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 26 August 2026

Supplementary File
(IJHPM does not take responsibility for any information provided in the supplementary files.)

  • Received Date 22 January 2026
  • Revised Date 18 June 2026
  • Accepted Date 09 August 2026
  • First Published Date 26 August 2026
  • Published Date 26 August 2026