Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences
Volume 25, Issue 2 (7-2026)
JRUMS 2026, 25(2): 101-102 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Producing Low-Quality Manuscripts. JRUMS 2026; 25 (2) :101-102
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-8050-en.html
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-8050-en.html
Keywords: Generative Artificial Intelligence, mega-journal
Full-Text [PDF 278 kb]
(10 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (27 Views)
Full-Text: (4 Views)
Editorial
Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences
Vol. 25, May 2026, pp: 101–102
Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Producing Low-Quality Manuscripts
Mohsen Rezaeian[1]
We have previously highlighted that the use of fabricated references, a bias toward Western-centric literature, and complex authorship considerations pose significant limitations on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in writing scientific articles (1, 2). However, other challenges persist. One such issue is the production of manuscripts characterized by low quality (3). As we have previously noted, one potential application of generative AI lies in the generation and development of novel ideas (4).
Nevertheless, the current utility of generative AI in this domain faces various constraints. Consequently, this task should be performed either by experienced researchers or under their direct supervision, accompanied by an extensive review of the relevant literature (5). Furthermore, employing generative AI for idea generation may inadvertently lead to the production of low-quality manuscripts. Unfortunately, such papers are often easily published in journals commonly referred to as “mega-journals” (6).
Mega-journals are characterized by broad, interdisciplinary scopes, are typically published online with open access, and maintain high acceptance rates. Consequently, they can publish a vast number of articles in each issue. While mega-journals have emerged relatively recently and employ editorial peer review, their business models—often relying on article processing charges (APCs)—can lead to high profitability. As a result, they may adopt less rigorous editorial peer review processes that focus exclusively on methodological soundness. This approach can lead to the publication of low-quality papers that, while technically sound in their methodology, may lack broader scientific impact or innovation (7, 8).
There is now a growing concern that the use of generative AI to produce low-quality manuscripts for publication in mega-journals may threaten the integrity of the global body of scientific knowledge. The solution lies in the transparent and responsible use of generative AI by members of the scientific community. Furthermore, researchers must strive to avoid the production and submission of low-quality papers. Finally, institutional evaluation systems should prioritize the quality of research and publications over mere quantitative metrics (6).
References
1. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Use of Fake Citations and Tendency Towards Western Texts. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2025; 24 (9): 773-4
2. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Complex Considerations in Authorship. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 24 (10): 887-8.
3. Cohen JF, Moher D. Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe? J Clin Epidemiol 2025; 179: 111646.
4. Khalifa M, Albadawy M. Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update 2024; 5: 100145.
5. Rezaeian M. Utilizing Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 25 (1): 1-2.
6. Kayaalp ME, Zaffagnini S, Mont MA, Karlsson J, Reider B, Ayeni O, Heyse T, Madry H, Herbst E, Milano G, Musahl V, Becker R, Hirschmann MT. Preserving Scientific Integrity in Academic Publishing: Navigating Artificial Intelligence, Journal Policies, and the Impact Factor as a Quality Indicator. J Arthroplasty 2025; 26: S0883-5403(25)00954-4.
7. Björk BC. Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 2015; 26;3:e981.
8. Björk BC. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ 2018; 9;6:e4357.
Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences
Vol. 25, May 2026, pp: 101–102
Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Producing Low-Quality Manuscripts
Mohsen Rezaeian[1]
We have previously highlighted that the use of fabricated references, a bias toward Western-centric literature, and complex authorship considerations pose significant limitations on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in writing scientific articles (1, 2). However, other challenges persist. One such issue is the production of manuscripts characterized by low quality (3). As we have previously noted, one potential application of generative AI lies in the generation and development of novel ideas (4).
Nevertheless, the current utility of generative AI in this domain faces various constraints. Consequently, this task should be performed either by experienced researchers or under their direct supervision, accompanied by an extensive review of the relevant literature (5). Furthermore, employing generative AI for idea generation may inadvertently lead to the production of low-quality manuscripts. Unfortunately, such papers are often easily published in journals commonly referred to as “mega-journals” (6).
Mega-journals are characterized by broad, interdisciplinary scopes, are typically published online with open access, and maintain high acceptance rates. Consequently, they can publish a vast number of articles in each issue. While mega-journals have emerged relatively recently and employ editorial peer review, their business models—often relying on article processing charges (APCs)—can lead to high profitability. As a result, they may adopt less rigorous editorial peer review processes that focus exclusively on methodological soundness. This approach can lead to the publication of low-quality papers that, while technically sound in their methodology, may lack broader scientific impact or innovation (7, 8).
There is now a growing concern that the use of generative AI to produce low-quality manuscripts for publication in mega-journals may threaten the integrity of the global body of scientific knowledge. The solution lies in the transparent and responsible use of generative AI by members of the scientific community. Furthermore, researchers must strive to avoid the production and submission of low-quality papers. Finally, institutional evaluation systems should prioritize the quality of research and publications over mere quantitative metrics (6).
|
Citation: Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Writing Low-Quality Articles. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 25 (2): 101-2. [Farsi] doi: 10.66224/jrums.25.2.101.
|
References
1. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Use of Fake Citations and Tendency Towards Western Texts. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2025; 24 (9): 773-4
2. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Complex Considerations in Authorship. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 24 (10): 887-8.
3. Cohen JF, Moher D. Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe? J Clin Epidemiol 2025; 179: 111646.
4. Khalifa M, Albadawy M. Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update 2024; 5: 100145.
5. Rezaeian M. Utilizing Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 25 (1): 1-2.
6. Kayaalp ME, Zaffagnini S, Mont MA, Karlsson J, Reider B, Ayeni O, Heyse T, Madry H, Herbst E, Milano G, Musahl V, Becker R, Hirschmann MT. Preserving Scientific Integrity in Academic Publishing: Navigating Artificial Intelligence, Journal Policies, and the Impact Factor as a Quality Indicator. J Arthroplasty 2025; 26: S0883-5403(25)00954-4.
7. Björk BC. Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 2015; 26;3:e981.
8. Björk BC. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ 2018; 9;6:e4357.
[1]- Prof., Dept. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Occupational Environment Research Center, Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran, ORCID: 0000-0003-3070-0166, Tel: (034) 31315243, E-mail: moeygmr2@yahoo.co.uk
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Editorial
Received: 2026/07/21 | Accepted: 2026/07/19 | Published: 2026/07/19
Received: 2026/07/21 | Accepted: 2026/07/19 | Published: 2026/07/19
References
1. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Use of Fake Citations and Tendency Towards Western Texts. JRUMS 2025; 24 (9): 773-4
2. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Complex Considerations in Authorship. JRUMS 2026; 24 (10): 887-8.
3. Cohen JF, Moher D. Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe? J Clin Epidemiol 2025; 179: 111646.
4. Khalifa M, Albadawy M. Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update 2024; 1; 5: 100145.
5. Rezaeian M. Utilizing Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 25 (1): 1-2. [Farsi]
6. Kayaalp ME, Zaffagnini S, Mont MA, Karlsson J, Reider B, Ayeni O, Heyse T, Madry H, Herbst E, Milano G, Musahl V, Becker R, Hirschmann MT. Preserving Scientific Integrity in Academic Publishing: Navigating Artificial Intelligence, Journal Policies, and the Impact Factor as a Quality Indicator. J Arthroplasty 2025; 26: S0883-5403(25)00954-4.
7. Björk BC. Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 2015; 26;3:e981.
8. Björk BC. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ 2018; 9;6:e4357.
9. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Use of Fake Citations and Tendency Towards Western Texts. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2025; 24 (9): 773-4
10. Rezaeian M. Limitations of Using Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Articles: Complex Considerations in Authorship. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 24 (10): 887-8.
11. Cohen JF, Moher D. Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe? J Clin Epidemiol 2025; 179: 111646.
12. Khalifa M, Albadawy M. Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update 2024; 5: 100145.
13. Rezaeian M. Utilizing Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 25 (1): 1-2.
14. Kayaalp ME, Zaffagnini S, Mont MA, Karlsson J, Reider B, Ayeni O, Heyse T, Madry H, Herbst E, Milano G, Musahl V, Becker R, Hirschmann MT. Preserving Scientific Integrity in Academic Publishing: Navigating Artificial Intelligence, Journal Policies, and the Impact Factor as a Quality Indicator. J Arthroplasty 2025; 26: S0883-5403(25)00954-4.
15. Björk BC. Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 2015; 26;3:e981.
16. Björk BC. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ 2018; 9;6:e4357.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |