Tue, Nov 10, 2026
[Archive]
Volume 19, Issue 1 (2026)
J Med Edu Dev 2026, 19(1): 105-106 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: Not applicable
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shomoossi N, Alizadeh K. The blurred lines of plagiarism and ai authorship in scientific publishing. , J Med Edu Dev. 2026; 19 (1) :105-106
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2636-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2636-en.html
1- Department of Applied Linguistics, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
2- English Language Department, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,Kamyab_Alizadeh@yahoo.com
2- English Language Department, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (706 Views)
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into scientific publishing has blurred the lines of authorship and plagiarism, challenging traditional definitions of intellectual integrity. As AI tools increasingly generate or paraphrase content, conventional detection mechanisms are becoming inadequate, necessitating a paradigm shift in how misconduct is identified. This letter examines the ethical complexities of AI-generated text and argues that preserving scientific integrity requires updated authorship guidelines, robust detection strategies, and a mandatory culture of transparency regarding AI use.
Editorial: Letter to Editor |
Subject:
Medical Sciences
Received: 2025/11/9 | Accepted: 2025/12/26 | Published: 2026/01/1
Received: 2025/11/9 | Accepted: 2025/12/26 | Published: 2026/01/1
References
1. Juyal D, Thawani V, Thaledi S. Plagiarism: an egregious form of misconduct. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(2):77-80. [DOI:10.4103/1947-2714.152084] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo Y, Pearson AT. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6:75. [DOI:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6] [PMID]
3. Telenti A, Auli M, Hie BL, Maher C, Saria S, Ioannidis JA. Large language models for science and medicine. Eur J Clin Invest. 2024;54(6):e14183. [DOI:10.1111/eci.14183] [PMID]
4. Ibrahim K. Using AI-based detectors to control AI-assisted plagiarism in ESL writing: "The Terminator Versus the Machines". Lang Test Asia. 2023;13:46. [DOI:10.1186/s40468-023-00260-2]
5. Elali FR, Rachid LN. AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community. Patterns (N Y). 2023;4(3):100706. [DOI:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100706] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Leong W, Zhang J. AI on academic integrity and plagiarism detection. ASM Sci J. 2025;1:9-20. [DOI:10.32802/asmscj.2025.1918]
7. Giglio AD, Costa M. The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native English speakers. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2023;69(9):e20230560 [DOI:10.1590/1806-9282.20230560] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
