Authorship Archives

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Integrity

Human Research Ethics

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

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Authorship

Related Links

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

Resources Menu

Research Integrity

Human Research Ethics

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

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

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