Surreal illustration of AI influencing academic writing.

AI in Academia: Navigating the Ethical Landscape of Manuscript Preparation

Rhea Morgan in Mind & Education June 2025 • 3 min read.

"Explore how AI tools are reshaping academic writing, the ethical concerns they raise, and the evolving views of academics on AI disclosure."

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Bard has sparked both excitement and apprehension in the academic world. While AI offers potential benefits for refining manuscripts, concerns about academic integrity and the quality of research have surfaced.

As AI tools become more prevalent, authors face a critical decision: should they disclose their use of AI in manuscript preparation? Journals and conferences are also grappling with whether to mandate disclosure or employ AI detection services, mirroring trends in educational settings.

This article delves into a recent study investigating academic perceptions of AI use in manuscript preparation. We examine the necessity of reporting AI assistance and how current AI detection tools respond to AI-altered academic writing.

The Great AI Debate: Report or Not?

Surreal illustration of AI influencing academic writing.

A significant portion of academics believe that using AI to rewrite text warrants reporting, while fewer think grammar correction requires disclosure. Interestingly, AI detection software doesn't always distinguish between these uses, often flagging grammar-fixed texts as AI-generated.

When it comes to assistance, there's little difference in how academics view help from ChatGPT versus a research assistant. However, paid proofreading services and other AI tools like Grammarly are perceived differently, raising questions about familiarity and perceived influence.

AI-assisted rewriting is viewed with greater scrutiny than grammar correction.
Perceptions of AI tools vary significantly compared to human assistance or traditional tools.
Demographics and ethical viewpoints influence attitudes toward AI use disclosure.

Disagreements persist on whether ChatGPT-rewritten text requires reporting, influenced by individual perceptions of ethics, academic roles, and English language backgrounds. This highlights the need for open discussions about AI's role in academia.

Moving Forward: Transparency and Guidelines

The academic community must define which forms of AI assistance require reporting and establish clear guidelines for AI use in scholarly work. Disclosing the prompts used for AI revision could enhance transparency. As AI tools evolve, ongoing dialogue is crucial to ensure ethical and responsible integration into academic practices.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is the main debate surrounding the use of AI in academic manuscript preparation?

The primary debate revolves around whether authors should disclose their use of AI tools during manuscript preparation. This encompasses a discussion on the necessity of reporting AI assistance and how current AI detection tools respond to AI-altered academic writing. The core of the discussion considers the ethical implications, academic integrity, and the evolving perceptions of AI's influence on scholarly work, with stakeholders divided on when and how AI use should be acknowledged.

How do academics perceive the use of AI tools like ChatGPT and Grammarly compared to human assistance or traditional proofreading?

Academics' perceptions vary significantly based on the type of assistance. The study indicates that there is little difference in how academics view help from ChatGPT versus a research assistant. However, paid proofreading services and other AI tools like Grammarly are perceived differently. AI-assisted rewriting is viewed with greater scrutiny than grammar correction, highlighting how academics differentiate between various forms of AI help. Factors such as familiarity with the tools and the perceived influence on the work also play a role in these perceptions.

Why is there a need for clear guidelines on the use of AI in academic writing?

Clear guidelines are essential because the academic community has yet to define which forms of AI assistance require reporting. This ambiguity leads to disagreements, particularly regarding the use of tools like ChatGPT. The differences in opinion are influenced by individual ethics, academic roles, and even the author's English language background. Transparent guidelines would help ensure ethical and responsible integration of AI into academic practices, ensuring integrity and promoting fairness.

What are the implications of using AI detection software in the context of academic writing?

AI detection software, while intended to identify AI-generated content, poses challenges. These tools do not always distinguish between different uses of AI. For example, grammar-fixed texts are often flagged as AI-generated. This means that legitimate uses of AI, such as grammar correction, may be incorrectly identified, leading to unfair accusations. The implications emphasize the need for nuanced guidelines on AI use, accurate detection methods, and transparency in reporting.

How can transparency be improved regarding AI use in scholarly work?

Transparency can be improved by defining clear guidelines about when AI assistance requires disclosure. Also, academics should be open about the extent of AI involvement in their manuscript preparation. Disclosing the prompts used for AI revision can enhance transparency. Open dialogues, as AI tools continue to evolve, are essential to establish ethical and responsible integration. These steps ensure that AI is used to augment and not to undermine academic integrity.