Sharpening the Pencil, Not Replacing the Hand: De‐Stigmatising AI Use in Research Writing

2026/03/17 by Aaron Opdyke

paper · doi:10.1002/leap.2055

Abstract

Key Points Most researchers accept AI in writing, yet stigma around disclosure persists—revealing a gap between practice and transparency. Avoiding AI in research writing may itself be an ethical misstep when clarity of communication is a scholarly obligation. AI disclosure should be reframed from confession to scholarly norm, modelling accountability rather than signalling weakness. Not all AI use carries equal ethical weight—disclosure frameworks should distinguish surface editing from deeper co‐production. Responsible AI engagement, not blanket avoidance, best mitigates risks of hallucination, bias, and epistemic homogenisation.

Citations

• Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?
• The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing
• A scholarly dialogue: writing scholarship, authorship, academic integrity and the challenges of AI
• Using AI to write scholarly publications

Cited by

• Inteligência artificial na elaboração de artigos científicos: usos, limites e boas práticas
• Artificial intelligence in the preparation of scientific articles: uses, limits, and best practices

Related

• Overcoming the stigma aroundGenerative AI: towardstransparent and responsible use inacademia
• Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?
• AI disclosure, moral shame, and the punishment of honesty
• When and how to disclose AI use in academic publishing: AMEE Guide No.192
• Academic journals' AI policies fail to curb the surge in AI-assisted academic writing