03 · What You Need to Know
When AI Brainstorming Becomes a Reportable Research Contribution
What Counts as Brainstorming With Generative AI?
AI-assisted brainstorming involves using a generative system to explore ideas, possibilities, questions, or alternative approaches before deciding what to pursue.
Researchers may ask AI to suggest research topics, identify possible variables, compare theoretical perspectives, generate hypotheses, or propose methodological alternatives.
Some interactions are exploratory and produce suggestions that are never used. Others may influence consequential research decisions.
For example, asking ChatGPT to suggest ten possible topics in educational technology is different from asking it to construct a complete conceptual framework that the researcher subsequently adopts.
Both activities may be described informally as brainstorming, but their intellectual and methodological implications differ.
Researchers should therefore evaluate the role of AI according to the substance of the interaction rather than relying exclusively on the label "brainstorming."
Why Is AI Brainstorming Difficult to Classify for Disclosure?
Research ideas rarely emerge from a single identifiable source.
A researcher may develop a question after reading several articles, attending a conference, discussing a problem with colleagues, and reflecting on observations from professional practice.
AI-assisted brainstorming may become one additional influence within this process.
However, the contribution of a generative system can be difficult to distinguish from the researcher's subsequent intellectual development.
An AI-generated suggestion may be rejected, modified beyond recognition, or combined with ideas from published scholarship.
Alternatively, a researcher may adopt a substantial AI-generated framework with little independent evaluation.
These situations should not be treated as equivalent.
The relevant disclosure question concerns the assistance that actually contributed to the research and the reporting requirements imposed by the applicable policy.
What Do Major Publishing Authorities Say About AI-Assisted Brainstorming?
Major scholarly publishing authorities address AI assistance broadly, although they do not all provide a separate, detailed rule for every brainstorming activity.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends disclosure of AI-assisted technologies used in producing submitted work and requires human authors to remain responsible for the content.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) emphasizes transparency concerning AI tools used in manuscript preparation and research activities.
Springer Nature distinguishes among forms of AI assistance and emphasizes the significance of AI's contribution to research and manuscript preparation.
These positions establish relevant principles, but they should not be interpreted as a universal rule that every exploratory question asked of a language model must appear in a research paper.
The intended journal's current instructions remain essential.
Researchers should distinguish general AI disclosure requirements from the narrower question of whether a particular brainstorming interaction is reportable.
Does Asking AI for Research Topic Ideas Require Disclosure?
Not necessarily under every policy.
A researcher may ask ChatGPT to suggest topics within a broad area, such as digital learning, educational assessment, or academic integrity.
The resulting list may help the researcher recognize possibilities without determining the final research question.
For example, the system might suggest studying AI literacy among university students. The researcher may subsequently review the literature, identify a specific theoretical problem, and develop a substantially different study.
In that situation, the initial suggestion may have served primarily as exploratory stimulation.
However, a journal with broad AI-use reporting requirements may still require disclosure of that interaction.
Researchers should not assume that topic brainstorming is universally exempt simply because no generated text was copied into the manuscript.
What If AI Suggests the Final Research Question?
When an AI-generated suggestion becomes the basis of the final research question, its contribution may be more consequential.
However, adopting a suggested question does not automatically mean the AI system designed the entire study or that the researcher lacks intellectual ownership of the research.
A research question must still be evaluated for originality, theoretical significance, feasibility, ethical appropriateness, and methodological coherence.
The researcher may substantially refine the suggestion through literature review and disciplinary judgment.
Where the AI contribution materially shapes the research and the applicable policy requires disclosure, that assistance should be reported accurately.
The statement should distinguish the initial suggestion from the subsequent intellectual work performed by the researcher.
Does AI-Assisted Hypothesis Generation Require Disclosure?
AI-assisted hypothesis generation may warrant disclosure when it materially influences the study's conceptual or methodological development.
For example, a researcher might ask a language model to propose relationships among AI literacy, academic self-efficacy, and students' use of generative AI.
The system may suggest that academic self-efficacy mediates the relationship between AI literacy and responsible AI use.
Such a suggestion is not evidence that the proposed relationship exists.
The researcher must examine the theoretical literature, evaluate the plausibility of the mechanism, and determine whether the hypothesis is suitable for empirical testing.
If the researcher adopts the proposed relationship as a central hypothesis, the AI contribution may be more substantial than an exploratory list of unrelated ideas.
Whether formal disclosure is required depends on the journal's policy and the actual role of the assistance.
Can AI Brainstorming Influence a Conceptual Framework?
Yes. Generative AI may suggest variables, theoretical relationships, or alternative ways of organizing a conceptual framework.
These suggestions can help researchers consider possibilities they might otherwise overlook.
However, AI systems may also combine constructs without sufficient theoretical justification.
For example, a model might recommend integrating the Technology Acceptance Model with self-determination theory and cognitive load theory because all three are relevant to educational technology.
That combination does not automatically constitute a coherent conceptual framework.
The researcher must establish why the theories belong together, what explanatory problem their integration addresses, and whether the proposed relationships are supported by scholarship.
Where AI substantially influences the final framework, researchers should consider whether the contribution falls within applicable disclosure requirements.
They should also avoid presenting an AI-generated theoretical combination as an established contribution without independently examining its scholarly basis.
When Does Brainstorming Become Research Design Assistance?
The distinction becomes important when AI moves beyond proposing general ideas and begins recommending procedures that shape how the study will be conducted.
For example, asking AI to suggest possible research topics is different from adopting its recommendation to use a particular sampling strategy, experimental design, or statistical model.
Methodological decisions can directly affect the validity and interpretation of findings.
If AI materially influences those decisions, the assistance may warrant documentation and methodological disclosure.
| AI Interaction |
Nature of Contribution |
Disclosure Consideration |
| Suggesting broad research topics |
Preliminary exploration |
Policy-dependent; may have limited lasting influence. |
| Proposing possible research questions |
Conceptual assistance |
Assess whether suggestions materially shaped the final study. |
| Generating hypotheses |
Potentially substantive conceptual contribution |
May warrant disclosure when adopted and required by policy. |
| Recommending a sampling strategy |
Methodological assistance |
Document and report consequential involvement where required. |
| Designing an analytical procedure |
Methodological contribution |
May require detailed methods reporting. |
| Suggesting ideas that were entirely rejected |
Exploratory interaction without direct adoption |
May not require publication disclosure unless policy specifies otherwise. |
These distinctions are practical analytical categories rather than universal classifications established by every publisher.
Does Brainstorming With AI Make the Research Less Original?
Not automatically. Originality concerns the scholarly contribution made by the research, not merely whether external suggestions influenced its development.
Researchers routinely encounter ideas through publications, seminars, peer discussions, and professional experiences.
AI-assisted brainstorming may similarly stimulate further inquiry.
However, generative AI can reproduce familiar research directions and conventional combinations of concepts. An idea that appears novel in an AI response may already be well established in the literature.
Researchers should therefore verify originality through appropriate scholarly searching and critical engagement with existing research.
AI-generated suggestions should not be treated as evidence that a research gap exists.
A study's originality must be established through its actual contribution to knowledge, not through the apparent novelty of a generated proposal.
Can AI Invent a Research Gap During Brainstorming?
Yes. A language model may confidently claim that a topic has received little scholarly attention without conducting a comprehensive or reliable review of the literature.
For example, it might suggest that no studies have examined the relationship between AI literacy and critical thinking among university students.
That claim may be incorrect or depend on an overly narrow definition of the topic.
Researchers should verify proposed gaps through appropriate literature searches, database coverage, and examination of relevant publications.
Even when relatively few studies address a particular question, scarcity alone does not establish its theoretical or practical significance.
The researcher must explain why the unresolved problem matters.
AI brainstorming can help generate questions worth investigating, but it cannot substitute for the evidence required to establish a genuine research gap.
Does AI Brainstorming Count as an Intellectual Contribution?
It may influence intellectual work, but that does not automatically make the AI system an eligible academic contributor or author.
Under the ICMJE framework, authorship requires substantial scholarly contribution together with drafting or critical review, final approval, and accountability.
COPE similarly excludes AI systems from authorship because they cannot assume responsibility for submitted work.
An AI system may suggest a research question or theoretical relationship, but it cannot independently accept the obligations of academic authorship.
The human researchers must evaluate, develop, and defend the ideas they adopt.
The distinction between AI assistance and formal author contributions is especially relevant when brainstorming affects conceptualization or methodology.
Can Researchers Claim Conceptualization Credit After AI Brainstorming?
Potentially, provided their actual contributions satisfy the journal's requirements.
Using AI to explore possibilities does not automatically eliminate the researcher's intellectual contribution.
A researcher may critically evaluate suggestions, synthesize relevant theory, refine the research problem, and develop a defensible conceptual framework.
These activities can constitute meaningful scholarly work.
However, merely copying an AI-generated research question or framework without understanding or developing it should not automatically be equated with substantial conceptualization.
Author contribution statements should reflect the work performed by the human researchers rather than assigning them credit solely because they operated the AI system.
Where AI assistance materially shaped conceptual development, any required disclosure should describe that role accurately.
Does Brainstorming Need to Be Disclosed if No AI Text Appears in the Manuscript?
Possibly. Disclosure requirements are not always limited to generated wording incorporated into the final paper.
AI may influence research design, hypothesis development, or analytical choices without contributing a single sentence to the manuscript.
Where such involvement is consequential and covered by the applicable policy, disclosure may be necessary.
Conversely, an exploratory conversation that produced only rejected suggestions may not require formal reporting under a policy focused on incorporated or substantive assistance.
The appropriate assessment concerns the role of the interaction and the governing requirements, not simply whether the final manuscript contains copied AI output.
Should Researchers Disclose Every Brainstorming Prompt?
Not universally. A journal may require a concise statement identifying the AI tool and its contribution without requiring every exploratory prompt.
Detailed prompt documentation may be more relevant when the AI interaction forms part of a reproducible research procedure.
For example, if a study systematically evaluates AI-generated hypotheses, the prompts may be integral to the methodology.
In contrast, an informal conversation used to explore possible research topics may not warrant publication of the complete interaction history unless required by policy.
Researchers should distinguish between documenting AI assistance for their own records and disclosing specific information in the published manuscript.
The question of whether AI prompts should be disclosed depends on their methodological significance and the applicable reporting requirements.
Should Rejected AI Suggestions Be Documented?
Not every rejected suggestion requires a formal record.
However, documenting consequential research decisions may be useful, particularly when an AI-generated recommendation was seriously considered and rejected for methodological or ethical reasons.
For example, a researcher might reject an AI-suggested experimental design because random assignment would be infeasible or inappropriate in the intended educational setting.
Recording that decision may help explain the development of the final methodology.
Such documentation is different from declaring every unsuccessful brainstorming exchange in the published manuscript.
The value of recording rejected AI suggestions depends on whether the decision is relevant to understanding or defending the research.
Can AI Brainstorming Create Confidentiality or Intellectual Property Concerns?
Yes. Researchers may provide unpublished ideas, proprietary information, confidential project details, or sensitive research materials when asking AI for suggestions.
External AI services may process and retain information according to their contractual and technical arrangements.
Researchers should therefore verify whether the intended tool is authorized for the information involved.
For example, sharing an unpublished grant proposal containing confidential institutional data may raise different concerns from asking a general question about possible educational technology topics.
Researchers should also consider contractual obligations concerning collaborative projects and confidential research plans.
Disclosure after publication does not retrospectively authorize an inappropriate transfer of protected information.
Where Should AI Brainstorming Be Disclosed?
The appropriate location depends on the journal's instructions and the nature of the contribution.
Exploratory assistance that materially influenced manuscript preparation may belong in a designated AI-use statement or another section specified by the publisher.
AI assistance that contributed to research design or methodological decisions may warrant explanation in the methods section, particularly where readers need that information to understand the procedure.
Some publishers may require a general declaration of generative AI use rather than separate statements for each activity.
Researchers should not assume that brainstorming always belongs in acknowledgments or that every conceptual suggestion must appear in methods.
The correct reporting location should reflect the actual contribution and the journal's requirements.
What Should an AI Brainstorming Disclosure Say?
Where disclosure is required, the statement should identify the tool and explain how its suggestions contributed to the research.
It should distinguish preliminary idea generation from substantive design or analytical assistance.
Illustrative Disclosure
AI Assistance During Research Planning
"The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) during preliminary research planning to explore possible research questions and alternative conceptual directions. The authors independently reviewed the relevant literature, developed the final research questions, and determined the study's theoretical and methodological framework."
This example is appropriate only if it accurately describes the assistance and the subsequent work performed.
A researcher who adopted an AI-generated conceptual framework with minimal modification should not use this wording to imply that the framework was developed independently.
Disclosure should communicate the actual contribution rather than provide a generic assurance of human control.
Does AI Brainstorming Need to Be Disclosed in a Thesis or Dissertation?
Institutional requirements may differ from journal policies.
Some universities permit AI-assisted brainstorming while requiring students to declare its use. Others may restrict assistance for tasks intended to assess independent conceptual development.
For example, a doctoral research proposal may evaluate the student's ability to identify a research problem, justify a theoretical framework, and design an appropriate study.
Extensive reliance on AI for those activities may raise questions about the work being assessed, even when similar assistance would be permitted in another context.
Researchers and students should consult the applicable institutional policy and assessment instructions rather than assuming that journal disclosure rules automatically govern theses or dissertations.
What If the Journal Does Not Mention Brainstorming?
Researchers should examine the journal's broader AI-use policy, publisher guidance, and submission declarations.
If the assistance materially influenced the research and the policy remains ambiguous, requesting editorial clarification may be appropriate.
The inquiry should describe the actual activity, such as preliminary topic exploration, hypothesis generation, or AI-assisted research design.
These distinctions are more informative than asking whether the journal permits brainstorming in general.
Researchers should retain an accurate record of consequential assistance and any clarification received.
Policy silence should not automatically be interpreted as either a universal prohibition or a universal exemption.
