{"title":"Beyond recommendations: expanding the ethical discourse on AI-assisted academic writing.","authors":"Mahin Nosratzehi, Shahin Nosratzehi, Masoud Keikha","doi":"10.1186/s41077-025-00362-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In response to Cheng et al.'s article on ethical recommendations for artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted academic writing, we propose an expanded ethical discourse to address the evolving role of AI in scholarly communication. While applauding the authors' foundational framework, we argue for greater disciplinary specificity, clearer thresholds for AI contribution, and broader consideration of systemic risks including linguistic bias, environmental impact, and corporate concentration. We advocate for the development of a graded typology of AI involvement, institution-led regulatory mechanisms, and integration of ethical AI use into editorial and research training practices. These enhancements are essential for building equitable, transparent, and sustainable AI governance in academic publishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"10 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12131420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-025-00362-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In response to Cheng et al.'s article on ethical recommendations for artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted academic writing, we propose an expanded ethical discourse to address the evolving role of AI in scholarly communication. While applauding the authors' foundational framework, we argue for greater disciplinary specificity, clearer thresholds for AI contribution, and broader consideration of systemic risks including linguistic bias, environmental impact, and corporate concentration. We advocate for the development of a graded typology of AI involvement, institution-led regulatory mechanisms, and integration of ethical AI use into editorial and research training practices. These enhancements are essential for building equitable, transparent, and sustainable AI governance in academic publishing.