ChatGPT as Co-author: Are researchers impressed or distressed?

Bhatia, Gayatri; Kulkarni, Alok

doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2023.103564

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The COPE position statement on AI asserts that authors are “fully responsible” for their work, including any portion produced by AI. This is important because, as publishers such as Elsevier and SAGE have noted, GAI can produce inaccurate, biased, or misleading outputs 1113. GAI tools are known to “hallucinate” and fabricate unfounded information 1113.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is important because, as publishers such as Elsevier and SAGE have noted, GAI can produce inaccurate, biased, or misleading outputs 1113. GAI tools are known to “hallucinate” and fabricate unfounded information 1113. Additionally, utilizing GAI tools introduces the risk of plagiarism, when text is duplicated from data sources 1233.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, more than 650 research articles and editorials have discussed the applications and pitfalls of GAI, many of which use GAI itself within the research and writing process. Within the context of research and academic writing, studies frequently mention the ability of GAI to improve grammar and vocabulary,9 translate text into various languages,10 propose novel research ideas,9 synthesize large amounts of information,11 suggest statistical tests,12 write code and novel textual content,1012 and streamline the overall research process 13. Authors have been warned that GAI cannot be held accountable for its output, which, among several pitfalls, include the risk of inaccuracy, bias, and plagiarism 1113…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 13 Authors have been warned that GAI cannot be held accountable for its output, which, among several pitfalls, include the risk of inaccuracy, bias, and plagiarism. 11 13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis

Ganjavi,

Eppler,

Pekcan

et al. 2024

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To determine the extent and content of academic publishers’ and scientific journals’ guidance for authors on the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). Design Cross sectional, bibliometric study. Setting Websites of academic publishers and scientific journals, screened on 19-20 May 2023, with the search updated on 8-9 October 2023. Participants Top 100 largest academic publishers and top 100 highly ranked scientific journals, regardless of subject, language, or country of origin. Publishers were identified by the total number of journals in their portfolio, and journals were identified through the Scimago journal rank using the Hirsch index (H index) as an indicator of journal productivity and impact. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were the content of GAI guidelines listed on the websites of the top 100 academic publishers and scientific journals, and the consistency of guidance between the publishers and their affiliated journals. Results Among the top 100 largest publishers, 24% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 15 (63%) were among the top 25 publishers. Among the top 100 highly ranked journals, 87% provided guidance on GAI. Of the publishers and journals with guidelines, the inclusion of GAI as an author was prohibited in 96% and 98%, respectively. Only one journal (1%) explicitly prohibited the use of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, and two (8%) publishers and 19 (22%) journals indicated that their guidelines exclusively applied to the writing process. When disclosing the use of GAI, 75% of publishers and 43% of journals included specific disclosure criteria. Where to disclose the use of GAI varied, including in the methods or acknowledgments, in the cover letter, or in a new section. Variability was also found in how to access GAI guidelines shared between journals and publishers. GAI guidelines in 12 journals directly conflicted with those developed by the publishers. The guidelines developed by top medical journals were broadly similar to those of academic journals. Conclusions Guidelines by some top publishers and journals on the use of GAI by authors are lacking. Among those that provided guidelines, the allowable uses of GAI and how it should be disclosed varied substantially, with this heterogeneity persisting in some instances among affiliated publishers and journals. Lack of standardization places a burden on authors and could limit the effectiveness of the regulations. As GAI continues to grow in popularity, standardized guidelines to protect the integrity of scientific output are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 13 Authors have been warned that GAI cannot be held accountable for its output, which, among several pitfalls, include the risk of inaccuracy, bias, and plagiarism. 11 13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis

Ganjavi,

Eppler,

Pekcan

et al. 2024

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, the use of AI tools in academia has gained acceptance among academics, with some exceptions (Bhatia & Kulkarni, 2023;Donmez et al, 2023). While these tools are better at some aspects of scholarly writing (question generation, abstract production) than others (literature reviews), they typically are helpful in increasing quality of scholarly communications (Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023;Dergaa et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of artificial intelligence authorship policies in top academic journals

Lund,

Naheem

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic publishers have quickly responded to the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on authorship and academic integrity. However, there remains a lack of understanding about AI authorship policies and the attitude of academic journals towards these tools. This study aims to address this gap by examining the AI authorship policies of 300 top academic journals during the period of late‐spring 2023. Over half of the journals examined have an AI authorship policy and guidelines for acknowledging AI usage in manuscript preparation. These acknowledgments are typically made in the methods or acknowledgement sections, although some journals have introduced a new, special section on AI usage. The study also found that AI authorship policies may differ depending on the publisher and discipline of the journal. Many publishers have adopted uniform AI authorship policies that are implemented across all journals that they publish. These results are useful for publishers, editors, and researchers who want to learn more about how academic journals are dealing with the emergence of large language models and other AI tools in scholarly communications.

show abstract

A Brief Survey on Exploring the Application Areas and Scope of ChatGPT

Demirok,

Özbayoğlu

2024

Engineering Cyber-Physical Systems and Critical Infrastructures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ChatGPT as Co-author: Are researchers impressed or distressed?

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis

Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis

Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of artificial intelligence authorship policies in top academic journals

A Brief Survey on Exploring the Application Areas and Scope of ChatGPT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About