Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Authorship

  • Home
  • >
  • Feeds
  • >
  • Authorship
AI(Artificial Intelligence) concept. deep learning.

Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature (January 2023)

First of all, let’s set aside the science-fiction nightmares of machines taking over the world and the hyperbole around ChatGPT.  The NLP and AI systems that are currently available do not possess general AI (AGI).  But they are becoming increasingly hard to spot and they produce their output by harvesting text from around the web, without attribution.  It is dishonest for a researcher to use systems such as ChatGPT to produce an output and claim it as their own work. Without careful review, editing and paraphrasing, the resulting text is likely to have serious errors, plagiarism and be impossible for a future researcher to replicate.

Read More
A digital illustration about artificial intelligence.

ChatGPT: our study shows AI can produce academic papers good enough for journals – just as some ban it – The Conversation (Brian Lucy & Michael Dowling | January 2023)

Set aside the current enthusiasm about the power and eloquence of ChatGPT.  It mines text previously published to the web.  It splices together paragraphs without genuinely understanding what it produces.  At the very least its products will need to be paraphrased and checked for logical or other errors.  We are just about to publish a foundation of institutional guidance on the use of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence systems in research outputs.  

Read More
Computer artwork of a human finger and a robot finger with a flash of inspiration.

Science journals ban listing of ChatGPT as co-author on papers – The Guardian (Ian Sample | January 2023)

AHRECS agrees with this move by academic publishers.  As we understand it the artificial intelligence systems currently available, such as ChatGPT are not general artificial intelligence (AGI).  We have observed recently, the current systems do not genuinely understand its interaction with humans or even the text that it produces.  As such, it can not take responsibility for what it produces, nor can it be held accountable when it breaches responsible research standards (such as reusing the text written by others without attribution).  Institutions must also provide useful guidance in this space.  AHRECS has published a foundation guidance document relating to ChatGPT and research outputs to our subscribers’ (ahrecs.vip).  This document is Creative Commons, Attribution.  A subscription costs an institution $350 per year

Read More
Creative code skull hologram on modern computer monitor, cybercrime and hacking concept. 3D Rendering

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists – Nature (Holly Else | January 2023)

Continuing with our recent discussion about ChatGPT, Natural Language Processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence in research outputs, this piece looks at the degree to which abstracts written by a machine are fooling academics into believing that they were written by humans. The process of the development of this technology is startling.  Research institutions,  publishers, funding bodies and learned societies need to establish policies, and guidance material and conduct professional development in this area.  AHRECS is currently working on a guidance document that we will post to the subscribers’ area in the next few days.

Read More
AI Processing Education Deep Learning Industry Concept 3d render

ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature (Chris Stokel-Walker | January 2023)

This piece published in Nature is another item in our recent discussion about ChatGPT and the role of Artificial Intelligence.  We need a far more nuanced and informed discussion on this topic.  ChatGPT is not a General Intelligence AI (AGI).  The answers it produces may be surprising and useful, but the system does not have a genuine understanding of its interactions with users. The general public’s inclination to anthropomorphism is well known.  Text produced without understanding cannot be considered to be the work of an author. ChatGPT cannot be considered responsible for the text it produces or accuntable for its mistakes or plagiarism.  It is a tool that might and should be acknowledged when it is used, but it cannot be named as a co-author.  We need research institutions, learned societies, national bodies, research funding bodies and publications to issue clear policies, guidance material and professional development on this matter.

Read More
The word "AUTHORSHIP" written on a curling red background.

Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers – Nature (Holly Else | January 2023)

We were previously unaware of this latest form of shady practice in scholarly publishing.  Institutional policies, guidance material and professional development should warn individuals away from selling authorship slots as well as purchasing authorship of a paper.  The act of selling or buying are serious forms of research misconduct and should be treated as such.  An individual seeking promotion, a performance bonus or referring to purchased coauthorship are forms of fraud.  This is a topic area collaborating researchers, research office staff, editors, peer reviewers and Research Integrity Advisers should be aware of.

Read More
Artificial intelligence illustration with blue text AI over binary code matrix background. Abstract concept of cyber technology and automation

AI and Scholarly Publishing: A View from Three Experts – The Scholarly Kitchen (Anita De Waard | January 2023)

This item continues the recent theme of ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in research and in research outputs.  Included here is a discussion in Scholarly Kitchen,  a few learned commentators reflecting on how technology is altering the academic landscape and scholarly publishing.  This is a topic area where collaborative researchers, research office staff and Research Integrity Advisers need to be aware of the issues, the challenges and obvious pitfalls for the unwary.

Read More
Robot typing on a computer keyboard - automation and AI research concept 3D illustration

Scientists, please don’t let your chatbots grow up to be co-authors – Substack (Gary Marcus | January 2023)

It is time for a more nuanced and thoughtful discussion about ChatGPT. Forget science fiction and the hype for the moment.  It is a good tool, but it doesn’t understand what it produces or really understand the question it has been asked. It regurgitates existing material that it has found, from a few sources, but it is still a form of plagiarism. The service can’t take responsibility for what it produces, cannot genuinely meet the criteria for authorship or be held accountable for its outputs.  At most, researchers should use it to produce a component of a paper and then be prepared to edit the section heavily.  Institution policy, guidance material and professional development must cover this.

Read More
Previous Page1 Page2 Page3 … Page50 Next

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in