AI Can Assist in Writing SINTA 2 Articles, but Authors Must Still Think Critically

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology are beginning to change the way academics compose scientific papers. Today, various AI platforms can assist in constructing sentences, improving grammar, and summarising references in a matter of seconds. However, this convenience does not mean AI can take over a writer’s thought process, especially when preparing scientific articles for reputable journals such as SINTA 2. A review published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science, available via PubMed Central, confirms that generative AI can be a useful tool in scientific writing. Nevertheless, the author retains full responsibility for the manuscript’s content, from data accuracy and analysis to the interpretation of results and research conclusions. AI cannot replace this role. AI technology can be utilised for various technical tasks, such as improving sentence structure, perfecting grammar, translating manuscripts, or helping to draft an outline. This allows authors to save time during the editing process. However, a scientific article is not judged solely on its polished language. The quality of a publication depends on the author’s ability to formulate research problems, critique the literature, develop a methodology, analyse data, and draw conclusions based on scientific evidence. This entire process requires critical thinking, which AI does not possess. The review also notes that various international scientific publishers hold a similar view. AI must not be listed as an author because it cannot take responsibility for the content of a publication. Instead, it is the human author who must ensure that all information has been verified and is free from errors or biases that AI might generate. Furthermore, the use of AI should be carried out transparently if required by journal policy. This transparency is important for maintaining academic integrity and building trust in research results. For authors targeting publication in a SINTA 2 journal, AI should be positioned as an assistant, not a replacement for the researcher. Technology can speed up the writing process, but the quality of an article is still determined by the author’s ability to think critically, construct logical arguments, and produce original findings. In other words, AI may help compose sentences, but the ideas, analysis, and scientific responsibility must still originate from a human being. This is the main foundation for ensuring that scientific work retains its academic value and high credibility.