Author: Simone Ragavooloo, Research Integrity Portfolio Manager

AI use in research is now the norm, but the boundaries of acceptable use remain unclear.

Our award-winning whitepaper, Unlocking AI’s untapped potential: responsible innovation in research and publishing, found that AI use in research is increasing rapidly year on year, with many feeling a pressure to adopt AI or risk being left behind. Shared norms for using it responsibly, however, are still catching up.

At the same time, confidence in whether AI is being used responsibly remains uneven. In our survey, 71% of respondents were concerned about misuse of AI tools, with 53% of researchers stating they had observed what they believe to be ‘AI misuse’ by peers.

This point is of critical importance; researchers are adopting AI tools faster than shared norms for responsible use are emerging. If trust in the academic record is to be maintained, the research community needs clearer and more consistent ways to distinguish responsible use from poor practice, misuse and deliberate misconduct.

What is AI misuse?

The phrase ‘AI misuse’ is now used widely, but often loosely. The term is often used as a catch-all label for everything from honest mistakes, uncritical reliance on AI outputs or missing disclosure, to deliberate fraud.

Crucially, what researchers label as misuse is applied inconsistently across the research community. It is used to encompass both deliberate misconduct (e.g. intentional fabrication or deception) and poor or unsafe practices (e.g. uncritical reliance on AI outputs without appropriate validation). This conflation is not harmless: when intentional deception and honest mistakes are treated as the same problem, we lose the ability to respond appropriately, weakening policies and punitive actions, distorting accountability, and undermining effective training.

Without a shared definition of AI misuse, views on consequences are becoming polarized

The absence of a shared definition is beginning to shape attitudes toward sanctions and accountability. This ambiguity is reflected in our survey findings, where views were highly polarized, ranging from zero-tolerance approaches to more pragmatic calls for transparency:

“If an author is found to be using AI, they should be permanently blacklisted from journal publication.”

“Use of AI in writing manuscripts and generating figures should face harsh punishment e.g. ban from publishing in a journal.”

At the same time, others raised concerns about unintentional misuse and the significance of disclosure:

“Criminalization of AI should be restricted to undisclosed use. Allow AI tools for publishers, authors, and reviewers with proper guidelines and transparency and flag unintended use.”

“‘Accidental’ plagiarism is a very serious problem, since researchers do not necessarily know the true origins of the ideas they present.”

And more recently, proposals have emerged advocating sanctions such as temporary bans up to one year for issues like hallucinated references, demonstrating the shift toward punitive responses, even where intent may be unclear. While such proposals reflect legitimate concerns about research integrity, they also raise questions about how intent, negligence, and harm should be assessed when determining appropriate responses.

In day-to-day reality, AI-related issues (like any form of misconduct) can range from unintended errors due to malpractice to deliberate and harmful deceit with intent.

Some existing frameworks already recognize that conduct can sit on a spectrum. For example, work by Sabina Alam at Taylor & Francis where figure 3 presents misconduct on a spectrum - from unintentional errors to deliberate fraud, but in discussions about AI, those distinctions are often flattened into a single category.

A practical spectrum of AI use in research

Simple scales based on intent alone are not enough. Intent to deceive can be difficult to determine, especially in early-stage or poorly documented cases. But impact alone is not enough either. Some harmful behavior may have limited visible effects at first, while an unintended mistake can still cause serious damage.

A robust assessment, therefore, requires consideration of both intent and impact - alongside the context in which the behavior occurred - to distinguish between error, misuse, and misconduct in a consistent and proportionate way.

To address this challenge, we propose a simple framework that distinguishes AI-related issues along two dimensions: intent and impact. This creates a more practical basis for assessing whether a case represents responsible use, low-risk misuse, high-risk misuse, or serious misconduct.

Figure 1: The spectrum of AI use from responsible use of low risk misuse, high-risk misuse and serious misconduct with intent to deceive.

Responsible AI use

Responsible AI use means using AI with appropriate human oversight, verification, and accountability.

This includes:

• transparency about how AI was used, where disclosure is required

• verification of AI-generated outputs, references, data summaries, or images

• clear human accountability for the final work

• attention to bias, inclusion, privacy, and data protection

• keeping up to date with journal, institutional, and sector guidance.

These principles are widely agreed already (refer to key sources and governing bodies and our AI guidelines BE WISE framework).

Misuse / malpractice (inappropriate or negligent use)

AI misuse is defined here as inappropriate, careless, or negligent use of AI where there is no clear intent to deceive. This includes:

• including AI-generated text without proper review

• citing unverified or fabricated references

• relying on outputs that introduce inaccuracies or bias

• repeated use of AI without sufficient oversight or professional judgment

• failing to disclose AI assistance where disclosure is expected.

Not all misuse has the same consequences. Some cases are low risk and correctable, such as isolated errors that do not affect the validity of the work. Others are higher risk, especially where AI use affects interpretation, reproducibility, or trust in the findings.

• Low-risk misuse (correctable): Minor or isolated errors that do not affect the validity of the research and can be corrected without harm.

• High-risk misuse (impacting research validity): Use of AI that introduces inaccuracies, bias, or unverified content that could affect interpretation, accuracy, or trust in the work.

Serious misconduct (deliberate deception or fraud)

Here, we define serious misconduct as the intentional use of AI that seriously undermines the integrity of the research.

• Fabricating data, results, or images

• Presenting false or AI-generated references as real

• Concealing AI use in order to mislead

• Presenting substantial AI-generated content as original contribution

• Using AI to evade plagiarism checks or disguise recycled content

Towards a proportionate response to AI misuse

The aim of this framework is not to excuse poor practice or lower standards, but to support more consistent and proportionate responses to AI use in research.

A proportionate response requires consideration of intent, impact, and context. By distinguishing between responsible use, misuse, and misconduct, the research community can support education where mistakes occur, apply sanctions where deception is evident, and maintain trust in the academic record while continuing to benefit from AI's potential.