1245423
research-article2024
JAPXXX10.1177/10783903241245423Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses AssociationPearson
Editorial
Artificial Intelligence and
Publication Ethics
Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD1
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a vast and expanding field
impacting all aspects of scholarly publishing (Peh & Saw,
2023). Bridging the gap between computers and humans,
these systems show intelligent behavior through environ-
mental analysis, achievement of specific goals, and pro-
cessing large amounts of data (Akinrinmade et al., 2023).
AI has existed since the 1950s when the idea of simulat-
ing intelligent behavior and critical thinking with com-
puters was first proposed (Kaul et al., 2020). The concepts
have evolved into specialty areas of robotics, computer
vision, speech recognition, image recognition, and lan-
guage processing (Kaul et al., 2020). AI has enormous
implications for patient care, training of health care pro-
viders, health care delivery, and academic publishing
(Akinrinmade et al., 2023; Peh & Saw, 2023). Fontenot
(2024) notes that AI can assist in handling ethical patient
care challenges and can quickly process clinical data and
potentially improve nursing care. This editorial will dis-
cuss the use of AI in manuscript development and peer
review and the ethical challenges presented to authors,
reviewers, and editors.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states
that AI is not the same as automation processes, such as
editorial management or the steps involved in submitting
a manuscript to a journal. Instead, AI involves “engineer-
ing intelligent systems, machines, and software that can
mimic human intelligence and behavior” (Committee on
Publication Ethics [COPE] Council, 2021, p.3). The goal
is to augment human intelligence and use a deep learning
model that creates a product better than that developed by
a human mind. COPE views natural language processing
(NLP) and machine learning (ML) as subsets of AI
(COPE Council, 2021). NLP describes the computer pro-
cess of understanding written or spoken text. ML applies
algorithms to datasets to identify patterns, make predic-
tions, or perform tasks without specific programming to
accomplish the task (COPE Council, 2021). Using only
AI to develop a manuscript or make editorial decisions
presents significant ethical issues, including authorship
attribution debates, generation of incorrect information,
intellectual property infringement, and plagiarism
(Carobene et al., 2023). Ideally, AI is already used to
assist editors or authors by providing careful, considered
guidance in detecting plagiarism (e.g., https://www.turni-
tin.com). While there are situations where automation of
Journal of the American Psychiatric
Nurses Association
2024, Vol. 30(3) 453­–455
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10783903241245423
https://doi.org/10.1177/10783903241245423
journals.sagepub.com/home/jap
various journal review processes might be acceptable, the
pitfalls of only using automation to publish a journal
include compromised editorial decision-making, risk of
nontransparency in using AI, and accountability dilem-
mas (COPE Council, 2021). COPE advocates for the bal-
anced use of ethical decision-making that includes AI,
along with the human interactions that characterize jour-
nal content development.
While several large language models exist for AI, Chat
Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is fre-
quently used in academic research (Dergaa et al., 2023) to
formulate what appear to be well-written essays, create
research abstracts, and analyze data. AI does not guarantee
ethical use of the process. The use of AI is not considered
unethical, but its use must be declared by authors. Its use
can involve the development of products that might need to
be more accurate and reflective of complex reasoning and
analysis and may not reflect human creativity. Questions
are legitimately raised about the authenticity and credibility
of research and publications developed only using AI, and
concerns are raised about the perpetuation of biases (e.g.,
gender, racial, ethnic, and geographic) because of existing
biases in the database (Parikh et al., 2019).
Ethical journal publication practice demands that all
authors and their contribution to the manuscript be
declared at manuscript submission. An ML system cannot
be a human author. Other potential ethical issues include
using AI to generate manuscripts in paper mills, defined
as businesses that manufacture scholarly papers with dis-
regard to ethical issues, as well as confidentiality issues
when manuscripts, or even parts of manuscripts, are
uploaded into AI tools during the peer-review process
(COPE, 2023). There are no automated tools to accu-
rately or systematically identify this type of writing in a
manuscript, but there are a number in development
(COPE, 2023). Authors must take responsibility for the
credibility and validity of their written work, reporting
the use of AI language models when used to develop a
publication (Flanagin et al., 2024; Peh & Saw, 2023).
1
Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH-BC, APRN, FAAN, Editor,
Higganum, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Geraldine S. Pearson, Higganum, CT, USA.
Email: geraldine_pearson@comcast.net
454
When authors properly identify parts of a manuscript
that have been developed using AI, reviewers and editors
can think carefully about whether this use is valid and
appropriate (Flanagin et al., 2024). Authors are often
asked by journals to declare the use of AI in submitted
papers, although how this translates to the review pro-
cess is unclear. Dergaa et al. (2023) recommended that
editors and reviewers become familiar with using AI to
understand its use in submitted papers. Publication eth-
ics issues affected by AI are the same for any submitted
manuscript and include authorship, plagiarism, self-pla-
giarism, and accurate referencing. Adhering to publica-
tion ethics concepts (including declaring use of AI) is
still essential to maintain the quality of the scientific
literature. JAPNA and its publisher, SAGE, require
transparency around the use of AI in manuscript devel-
opment. The use of peer review and AI is clearly delin-
eated in JAPNA’s submission guidelines (https://
journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/JAP).
While using AI in manuscript development was ini-
tially questioned as legitimate scholarly activity, this
view has changed. Carobene et al. (2023) noted that AI is
not a replacement for academic writing but a collabora-
tive process in pursuing knowledge in an ethical manner.
Jeyaraman et al. (2023) recommended embedding
concepts of moral agency into the development of
scholarly papers. They acknowledge that AI is an
excellent tool for generating ideas and reviewing writ-
ing style but it does not engage in morality (Jeyaraman
et al., 2023). Morally, authors are expected to formu-
late and generate original ideas. It is a challenge for
editors and reviewers to identify writing produced only
by AI, which might not be accurate, creative, or ethi-
cal. AI is best used to enhance scholarly writing, and
the final product should reflect the authors’ intellectual
processes. Jeyaraman et al. (2023) recommended using
AI programs to check facts and grammar after the
paper is written rather than relying on AI to write the
paper. Some institutions are advocating the use of AI to
develop research questions and reviews (Carobene
et al., 2023).
Human intelligence and critical thinking continue to
be the hallmarks of scholarly work. While the use of AI
might detract from this, it could also be used to enhance
quality. Dergaa et al. (2023) emphasized the need for
academic caution, ongoing discussion, and transparency
related to its use. Educating researchers and academics,
developing guidelines and standards, developing tools
for detecting AI-generated content, promoting respon-
sible use, and engaging with the broader academic com-
munity are all recommendations for use of AI going
forward (Dergaa et al., 2023). Editors, authors, and
reviewers have a responsibility to be informed about AI
and the challenges it presents when developing schol-
arly documents. COPE advocates identifying the ethical
Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 30(3)
publishing dilemmas presented by AI for decision-mak-
ing, focusing on accountability, responsibility, and trans-
parency (COPE Council, 2021).
AI systems are not going away and are likely to expand
and become more sophisticated in the future (COPE,
2023). AI has a pervasive influence on all aspects of life.
For the scholarly journal world, it presents ethical dilem-
mas along with a powerful tool that potentially improves
structural quality of writing. Tools that can accurately iden-
tify aspects of a paper developed by AI are still in develop-
ment (COPE, 2023). Editors and manuscript reviewers
must carefully filter out the parts of a paper generated by
AI versus parts written solely by an author. Currently, this
involves careful reading of papers for inaccuracies and
clarity, especially if authors have not declared the legiti-
mate use of AI in manuscript development. Until auto-
mated tools are developed to better identify papers written
by AI, editors and reviewers are left to look more carefully
at content (including references) for accuracy. Carobene
et al. (2023) noted that effective use of AI is balanced with
critical thinking, independent reasoning, and the need to
preserve quality and scientific inquiry. Tang et al. (2023)
noted the current disconnect between ethical principles
and developed guidelines. They recommended routinely
embedding ethical concepts into all processes involving
clinicians, patients, and researchers. Empirical knowl-
edge about AI development is essential and necessitates
the eventual development of research models to test use.
If AI can legitimately assist nurses in writing and submit-
ting their scholarly work, its use should be maximized in
the most ethical way possible.
NOTE: After writing, this editorial was reviewed and
revised using Grammerly’s ChatGPT program. The
author provided the intellectual contribution and concep-
tual development.
References
Akinrinmade, A. O., Adebile, T. M., Ezuma-Ebong, C., Bolaji,
K., Ajufo, A., Adigun, A. O., Mohammad, M., Dike, J. C.,
& Okobi, O. E. (2023). Artificial intelligence in healthcare:
Perception and reality. Cureus, 15(9), e45594. https://doi.
org/10.7759/cureus.45594
Carobene, A., Padoan, A., Cabitza, F., Banfi, G., & Plebani,
M. (2023). Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in
scientific publishing: Evaluating the role, risks, and ethi-
cal implications in paper drafting and review process.
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. https://doi.
org/10.1515/cclm-2023-1136
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). Artificial intelligence
in the news. https://publicationethics.org/news/artificial-
intelligence-news
Committee on Publication Ethics Council. (2021). COPE dis-
cussion document: Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision
making. https://doi.org/10.24318/9kvAgrnJ; https://publi-
cationethics.org/sites/default/files/ai-in-decision-making-
discussion-doc.pdf
Pearson
Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Ben Saad, H.
(2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence
generated text: Examining the prospects and potential
threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of
Sport, 40(2), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.
2023.125623
Flanagin, A., Pirracchio, R., Khera, R., Berkwits, M., Hswen,
Y., & Bibbins-Domingo, K. (2024). Reporting use of AI
in research and scholarly publication—JAMA Network
Guidance. JAMA, 331, 1096–1098. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jama.2024.3471
Fontenot, J. (2024). Spotlight on Leadership: What nurse
leaders need to know about artificial intelligence. Journal
of Nursing Administration, 54(2), 74–76. https://doi.
org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000001384
Jeyaraman, M., Balaji, S., Jeyaraman, N., & Yadav, S. (2023).
Unraveling the ethical enigma: Artificial intelligence in
455
healthcare. Cureus, 15(8), e43262. https://doi.org/10.7759/
cureus.43262
Kaul, V., Enslin, S., & Gross, S. A. (2020). History of artificial
intelligence in medicine. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 92,
807–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.040
Parikh, R. B., Teeple, S., & Navathe, A. S. (2019). Addressing
bias in artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA,
322(24), 2377–2378. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.
18058
Peh, W., & Saw, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence: Impact and
challenges to authors, journals and medical publishing.
Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal, 17(3), 1–4. https://doi.
org/10.5704/MOJ.2311.001
Tang, L., Li, J., & Fantus, S. (2023). Medical artificial intel-
ligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical stud-
ies. Digital Health, 9, 20552076231186064. https://doi.
org/10.1177/20552076231186064