Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.

Background and Objectives: AI is transforming healthcare, with family doctors at the forefront. As primary care providers, they play a key role in integrating AI into patient care. Despite AI’s potential, concerns about trust, data privacy, and physician autonomy persist. Little research exists on family doctors’ perspectives. This study investigates the views of Lithuanian family physicians on AI’s ethical challenges and benefits, aiming to support responsible implementation. Materials and Methods: A review of the literature was conducted (2015–2025) using Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus. This qualitative study explored family physicians’ perceptions of AI in Lithuania, focusing on ethics, AI’s role, experience, training, and concerns about replacement. Informed consent and ethical guidelines were followed. Results: AI has strong potential in family medicine, automating administrative tasks, improving diagnostic accuracy, and supporting patient autonomy. AI tools, like clinical documentation systems and smart devices save time, allowing physicians to focus on patient care. They also improve diagnostic precision, enabling earlier detection of conditions such as cancer and coronary artery disease. Physicians express concerns about AI’s reliability, biases, and data privacy. While AI boosts efficiency, many emphasize the importance of human oversight in decision-making, especially in complex cases. Privacy concerns around health data and the need for stricter regulations are crucial. Lithuanian family physicians generally accept AI as a helpful tool for routine tasks but remain cautious regarding its trustworthiness. Job displacement concerns were not prevalent, with AI seen as a tool to augment rather than replace their role. Successful AI integration requires training, transparency, and ethical guidelines to build trust and ensure patient safety. Conclusions: AI enhances efficiency in family medicine but requires structured training and ethical safeguards to address concerns about data privacy, accountability, and bias. AI is viewed as supportive, not as a replacement.