Does GPT-3 qualify as a co-author of a scientific paper publishable in peer-review journals according to the ICMJE criteria? - A Case Study.

Abstract

This paper explores the potential for a system to be a co-author on an academic paper based on the criteria proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We used a third generation generative pretrained transformer (GPT-3) to write a review paper on the topic of its choice: The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Cognitive Function. The system was asked to fulfill the four main criteria for co-authorship as recommended by ICMJE, which includes contributions to the conception or design of the work; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Our results showed that the system was able to fulfill the criteria, although it had difficulty with referencing. We also explored the ethical implications of using AI systems for research and found that it is important to take a cautious approach when considering its use for scientific authorship. This case study provides a methodology for further investigations into the possibilities and limitations of automated writing.

Navigating the Transformative Impact of Artificial Intelligence on English Language Teaching: Exploring Challenges and Opportunities

“…The main goal has been to help students and reduce repetitious tasks for teachers in order to improve the learning process. While Thunström and Steingrimsson (2022) utilized it to construct a whole scientific paper (though it contains common problems such weak claims and inappropriate references), Dehouche (2021) demonstrates in his opinion paper on GPT-3 that it can generate academic papers that pass current plagiarism checks. According to Cotton et al (2023), ChatGPT is an effective writing tool that may be used to produce a paper that seems credible.…”

AI Chatbots in Chinese higher education: adoption, perception, and influence among graduate students—an integrated analysis utilizing UTAUT and ECM models

“…Their versatility extends to addressing technical (e.g., engineering technology and computer programming) and non-technical issues (e.g., language and literature) across diverse disciplines. For example, in computer science, they provide explanations for various code, aiding students’ programming comprehension ( MacNeil et al, 2022 ); in chemistry, they assist in evaluating answer quality ( Moore et al, 2022 ); in language teaching, they offer personalized interaction, reducing learner anxiety ( Bao, 2019 ); and in medical education, they aid in auto-grading, auxiliary teaching, information retrieval, and case-scenario generation ( Thunström, 2022 ; Hamoudi, 2023 ).…”

The Bot Delusion. Large language models and anticipated consequences for academics’ publication and citation behavior

“…For example, AI tools write texts that are hardly distinguishable from texts written by scientists or detectable by plagiarism software (Sharples, 2022). Moreover, ANNs already draft scientific publications (Thunström et al, 2022).…”

“…Its current version cannot replace academics, but may serve academics as a research writing aid. To date, context-sensitive citation is mostly unsuccessful, as ChatGPT cannot correctly bibliographize citations used elsewhere or even invents citations (Thunström et al, 2022). However, it seems only a matter of time before ChatGPT or other ANN-based programs correctly cite literature contextsensitively at the correct locations within texts, especially if the ANN is coupled with citation databases and major publishers ("Tools Such as ChatGPT Threaten Transparent Science" 2023).…”