Using AI to write scholarly publications

Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge

“…7 The policy also advises researchers who use these tools to document this use in the Methods or Acknowledgment sections of manuscripts. 7 Other journals 8,9 and organizations 10 are swiftly developing policies that ban inclusion of these nonhuman technologies as "authors" and that range from prohibiting the inclusion of AI-generated text in submitted work 8 to requiring full transparency, responsibility, and accountability for how such tools are used and reported in scholarly publication. 9,10 The International Conference on Machine Learning, which issues calls for papers to be reviewed and discussed at its conferences, has also announced a new policy: "Papers that include text generated from a large-scale language model (LLM) such as ChatGPT are…”

“…The scholarly publishing community has quickly reported concerns about potential misuse of these language models in scientific publication . Individuals have experimented by asking ChatGPT a series of questions about controversial or important topics (eg, whether childhood vaccination causes autism) as well as specific publishing-related technical and ethical questions . Their results showed that ChatGPT’s text responses to questions, while mostly well written, are formulaic (which was not easily discernible), not up to date, false or fabricated, without accurate or complete references, and worse, with concocted nonexistent evidence for claims or statements it makes.…”

“…1,[12][13][14] Individuals have experimented by asking ChatGPT a series of questions about controversial or important topics (eg, whether childhood vaccination causes autism) as well as specific publishing-related technical and ethical questions. 9,10,12 Their results showed that ChatGPT's text responses to questions, while mostly well written, are formulaic (which was not easily discernible), not up to date, false or fabricated, without accurate or complete references, and worse, with concocted nonexistent evidence for claims or statements it makes. OpenAI acknowledges some of the language model's limitations, including providing "plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers," and that the recent release is part of an open iterative deployment intended for human use, interaction, and feedback to improve it.…”

“…Nature has since defined a policy to guide the use of large-scale language models in scientific publication, which prohibits naming of such tools as a “credited author on a research paper” because “attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, and AI tools cannot take such responsibility.” The policy also advises researchers who use these tools to document this use in the Methods or Acknowledgment sections of manuscripts . Other journals and organizations are swiftly developing policies that ban inclusion of these nonhuman technologies as “authors” and that range from prohibiting the inclusion of AI-generated text in submitted work to requiring full transparency, responsibility, and accountability for how such tools are used and reported in scholarly publication . The International Conference on Machine Learning, which issues calls for papers to be reviewed and discussed at its conferences, has also announced a new policy: “Papers that include text generated from a large-scale language model (LLM) such as ChatGPT are prohibited unless the produced text is presented as a part of the paper’s experimental analysis.” The society notes that this policy has generated a flurry of questions and that it plans “to investigate and discuss the impact, both positive and negative, of LLMs on reviewing and publishing in the field of machine learning and AI” and will revisit the policy in the future…”

Artificial intelligence-assisted medical writing: With greater power comes greater responsibility

“…[5] Similarly, many publication houses have come up with guidelines to the authors regarding the extent use of such AI tools in the manuscript, along with its justification. [6] The World Association of Medical Editors have recently laid down recommendations for the use of Chatbots in medical publishing. The recommendations say that these language processing tools cannot be eligible for authorship of any manuscript, authors of the manuscript will be responsible for all data generated by AI tools, authors should be transparent about usage of such tools, and the editors should have updated software to detect the use of such AI-assisted tools.…”