12,445 papers · continuously updated · last export: 10 Aug 2026livingmeta.ai
← Browse all papers
AI evidence extraction

Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing

Barton Moffatt, Alicia Hall · Accountability in Research · 2024

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

9/10
Relevance
1/4
Quality (LMQS)
I
Evidence
28
Citations
2.87
FWCI
Top 10%
Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2386285

Methodology & findings

Study design

Philosophical and ethical analysis; conceptual argumentation examining authorship criteria, responsibility frameworks, and publication ethics implications.

Main result

The paper argues that "AI systems should not be included on the author by-line" and identifies fundamental problems: "LLMs are incapable of taking responsibility for their work and thus do not meet current authorship guidelines." Additionally, the authors contend that "AI tools also do not write in a meaningful sense nor do they have persistent identities," and that "adopting AI authorship would have detrimental effects on an already overly competitive and stressed publishing ecosystem."

Research paradigm

Interpretive/philosophical analysis

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "AI systems should not be included on the author by-line" and that the problems with AI authorship "go deeper as AI tools also do not write in a meaningful sense nor do they have persistent identities." They further note that "adopting AI authorship would have detrimental effects on an already overly competitive and stressed publishing ecosystem" and question "the value of using AI to produce more research simply for publication's sake."

Risk of bias

Potential confirmation bias in selecting examples supporting the argument against AI authorship; Limited scope to abstract (full paper not provided for assessment); Normative rather than descriptive approach may not capture all perspectives on AI in publishing

Open questions raised

  • The paper does not explicitly identify future research gaps, but raises questions about the detection of AI usage in papers and the broader implications of AI on scientific publishing ethics.
  • The paper does not explicitly identify future research gaps in the provided abstract.
Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 75%

Explore related topics

Authorship & AttributionResearch IntegrityPosition Paper

Related papers

← Browse all papers