Using AI to write scholarly publications

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars.Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model.Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references.Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

ChatGPT as an "author": Bibliometric analysis to assess the validity of authorship

Background: Following the 2023 surge in popularity of large language models like ChatGPT, significant ethical discussions emerged regarding their role in academic authorship. Notable ethics organizations, including the ICMJE and COPE, alongside leading publishers, have instituted ethics clauses explicitly stating that such models do not meet the criteria for authorship due to accountability issues.Objective: This study aims to assess the prevalence and ethical implications of listing ChatGPT as an author on academic papers, in violation of existing ethical guidelines set by the ICMJE and COPE.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus to identify instances where ChatGPT was credited as an author, co-author, or group author.Results: Our search identified 14 papers featuring ChatGPT in such roles. In four of those papers, ChatGPT was listed as an "author" alongside the journal's editor or editor-in-chief. Several of the ChatGPT-authored papers have accrued dozens, even hundreds of citations according to Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.Discussion: The inclusion of ChatGPT as an author on these papers raises critical questions about the definition of authorship and the accountability mechanisms in place for content produced by artificial intelligence. Despite the ethical guidelines, the widespread citation of these papers suggests a disconnect between ethical policy and academic practice.Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for corrective measures to address these discrepancies. Immediate review and amendment of the listed papers is advised, highlighting a significant oversight in the enforcement of ethical standards in academic publishing.

Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach

ChatGPT, a large language model, has gained significance in medical writing, particularly in case reports that document the course of an illness. This article explores the integration of ChatGPT and how ChatGPT shapes the process, product, and politics of medical writing in the real world. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on case reports utilizing ChatGPT and indexed in PubMed, encompassing publication information. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis was conducted to categorize the applications and limitations of ChatGPT and the publication trend of application categories. A total of 66 case reports utilizing ChatGPT were identified, with a predominant preference for the online version and English input by the authors. The prevalent application categories were information retrieval and content generation. Notably, this trend remained consistent across different months. Within the subset of 32 articles addressing ChatGPT limitations in case report writing, concerns related to inaccuracies and a lack of clinical context were prominently emphasized. This pointed out the important role of clinical thinking and professional expertise, representing the foundational tenets of medical education, while also accentuating the distinction between physicians and generative artificial intelligence.

Detection of plagiarism among rhinology scientific journals

KEY POINTS

Automated plagiarism-checking software can be a valuable tool for detecting plagiarism in manuscripts. Twenty-five of 60 articles (42%) had at least one incidence of plagiarism, predominately text recycling. A "similarity score" ranging from 22% to 35% could be a potential cut-off value when screening submitted manuscripts.

Evaluating Large Language Models in Extracting Cognitive Exam Dates and Scores

Importance

Large language models (LLMs) are crucial for medical tasks. Ensuring their reliability is vital to avoid false results. Our study assesses two state-of-the-art LLMs (ChatGPT and LlaMA-2) for extracting clinical information, focusing on cognitive tests like MMSE and CDR.

Objective

Evaluate ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 performance in extracting MMSE and CDR scores, including their associated dates.

Methods

Our data consisted of 135,307 clinical notes (Jan 12th, 2010 to May 24th, 2023) mentioning MMSE, CDR, or MoCA. After applying inclusion criteria 34,465 notes remained, of which 765 underwent ChatGPT (GPT-4) and LlaMA-2, and 22 experts reviewed the responses. ChatGPT successfully extracted MMSE and CDR instances with dates from 742 notes. We used 20 notes for fine-tuning and training the reviewers. The remaining 722 were assigned to reviewers, with 309 each assigned to two reviewers simultaneously. Inter-rater-agreement (Fleiss' Kappa), precision, recall, true/false negative rates, and accuracy were calculated. Our study follows TRIPOD reporting guidelines for model validation.

Results

For MMSE information extraction, ChatGPT (vs. LlaMA-2) achieved accuracy of 83% (vs. 66.4%), sensitivity of 89.7% (vs. 69.9%), true-negative rates of 96% (vs 60.0%), and precision of 82.7% (vs 62.2%). For CDR the results were lower overall, with accuracy of 87.1% (vs. 74.5%), sensitivity of 84.3% (vs. 39.7%), true-negative rates of 99.8% (98.4%), and precision of 48.3% (vs. 16.1%). We qualitatively evaluated the MMSE errors of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 on double-reviewed notes. LlaMA-2 errors included 27 cases of total hallucination, 19 cases of reporting other scores instead of MMSE, 25 missed scores, and 23 cases of reporting only the wrong date. In comparison, ChatGPT's errors included only 3 cases of total hallucination, 17 cases of wrong test reported instead of MMSE, and 19 cases of reporting a wrong date.

Conclusions

In this diagnostic/prognostic study of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 for extracting cognitive exam dates and scores from clinical notes, ChatGPT exhibited high accuracy, with better performance compared to LlaMA-2. The use of LLMs could benefit dementia research and clinical care, by identifying eligible patients for treatments initialization or clinical trial enrollments. Rigorous evaluation of LLMs is crucial to understanding their capabilities and limitations.

Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has greatly propelled progress across various sectors including the field of nephrology academia. However, this advancement has also given rise to ethical challenges, notably in scholarly writing. AI's capacity to automate labor-intensive tasks like literature reviews and data analysis has created opportunities for unethical practices, with scholars incorporating AI-generated text into their manuscripts, potentially undermining academic integrity. This situation gives rise to a range of ethical dilemmas that not only question the authenticity of contemporary academic endeavors but also challenge the credibility of the peer-review process and the integrity of editorial oversight. Instances of this misconduct are highlighted, spanning from lesser-known journals to reputable ones, and even infiltrating graduate theses and grant applications. This subtle AI intrusion hints at a systemic vulnerability within the academic publishing domain, exacerbated by the publish-or-perish mentality. The solutions aimed at mitigating the unethical employment of AI in academia include the adoption of sophisticated AI-driven plagiarism detection systems, a robust augmentation of the peer-review process with an "AI scrutiny" phase, comprehensive training for academics on ethical AI usage, and the promotion of a culture of transparency that acknowledges AI's role in research. This review underscores the pressing need for collaborative efforts among academic nephrology institutions to foster an environment of ethical AI application, thus preserving the esteemed academic integrity in the face of rapid technological advancements. It also makes a plea for rigorous research to assess the extent of AI's involvement in the academic literature, evaluate the effectiveness of AI-enhanced plagiarism detection tools, and understand the long-term consequences of AI utilization on academic integrity. An example framework has been proposed to outline a comprehensive approach to integrating AI into Nephrology academic writing and peer review. Using proactive initiatives and rigorous evaluations, a harmonious environment that harnesses AI's capabilities while upholding stringent academic standards can be envisioned.

Editors' statement on the responsible use of generative AI technologies in scholarly journal publishing

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Guiding principles and proposed classification system for the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific writing in medicine

The integration of large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing, especially in medical literature, presents both unprecedented opportunities and inherent challenges. This manuscript evaluates the transformative potential of LLMs for the synthesis of information, linguistic enhancements, and global knowledge dissemination. At the same time, it raises concerns about unintentional plagiarism, the risk of misinformation, data biases, and an over-reliance on AI. To address these, we propose governing principles for AI adoption that ensure integrity, transparency, validity, and accountability. Additionally, guidelines for reporting AI involvement in manuscript development are delineated, and a classification system to specify the level of AI assistance is introduced. This approach uniquely addresses the challenges of AI in scientific writing, emphasizing transparency in authorship, qualification of AI involvement, and ethical considerations. Concerns regarding access equity, potential biases in AI-generated content, authorship dynamics, and accountability are also explored, emphasizing the human author's continued responsibility. Recommendations are made for fostering collaboration between AI developers, researchers, and journal editors and for emphasizing the importance of AI's responsible use in academic writing. Regular evaluations of AI's impact on the quality and biases of medical manuscripts are also advocated. As we navigate the expanding realm of AI in scientific discourse, it is crucial to maintain the human element of creativity, ethics, and oversight, ensuring that the integrity of scientific literature remains uncompromised.

MetaQA: Enhancing human-centered data search using Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) language model and artificial intelligence

Accessing and utilizing geospatial data from various sources is essential for developing scientific research to address complex scientific and societal challenges that require interdisciplinary knowledge. The traditional keyword-based geosearch approach is insufficient due to the uncertainty inherent within spatial information and how it is presented in the data-sharing platform. For instance, the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) data search platform stores geoinformation and metadata in a complex tabular. Users can search for data by entering keywords or selecting data from a drop-down manual from the user interface. However, the search results provide limited information about the data product, where detailed descriptions, potential use, and relationship with other data products are still missing. Language models (LMs) have demonstrated great potential in tasks like question answering, sentiment analysis, text classification, and machine translation. However, they struggle when dealing with metadata represented in tabular format. To overcome these challenges, we developed Meta Question Answering System (MetaQA), a novel spatial data search model. MetaQA integrates end-to-end AI models with a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) to enhance geosearch services. Using GCOOS metadata as a case study, we tested the effectiveness of MetaQA. The results revealed that MetaQA outperforms state-of-the-art question-answering models in handling tabular metadata, underlining its potential for user-inspired geosearch services.

Passive Contribution of ChatGPT to Scientific Papers

Arguably ChatGPT jeopardizes the integrity and validity of the academic publications instead of ethically facilitating them. ChatGPT can apparently fulfill a portion of one of the four authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), i.e., "drafting." However, the authorship criteria by ICMJE must all be collectively met, not singly or partially. Many published manuscripts or preprints have credited ChatGPT by including it in the author byline, and the academic publishing enterprise seems to be unguided on how to handle such manuscripts. Interestingly, PLoS Digital Health removed ChatGPT off a paper which had ChatGPT listed initially in the author byline of the preprint version. Revised publishing policies are, thus, promptly required to guide a consistent stance regarding ChatGPT or similar artificial content generators. Publishing policies must accord among publishers, preprint servers ( https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers ), universities, and research institutions worldwide and across different disciplines. Ideally, considering any declaration of the contribution of ChatGPT to writing any scientific article should be recognized as publishing misconduct immediately and be retracted. Meanwhile, all parties involved in the scientific reporting and publishing must be educated about how ChatGPT fails to meet the essential authorship criteria, so that no author must submit a manuscript with ChatGPT contributing as a "co-author." Meanwhile, using ChatGPT for writing laboratory reports or short summaries of experiments may be acceptable, but not for academic publishing or formal scientific reporting.

An exploratory survey about using ChatGPT in education, healthcare, and research

OBJECTIVE

ChatGPT is the first large language model (LLM) to reach a large, mainstream audience. Its rapid adoption and exploration by the population at large has sparked a wide range of discussions regarding its acceptable and optimal integration in different areas. In a hybrid (virtual and in-person) panel discussion event, we examined various perspectives regarding the use of ChatGPT in education, research, and healthcare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed in-person and online attendees using an audience interaction platform (Slido). We quantitatively analyzed received responses on questions about the use of ChatGPT in various contexts. We compared pairwise categorical groups with a Fisher's Exact. Furthermore, we used qualitative methods to analyze and code discussions.

RESULTS

We received 420 responses from an estimated 844 participants (response rate 49.7%). Only 40% of the audience had tried ChatGPT. More trainees had tried ChatGPT compared with faculty. Those who had used ChatGPT were more interested in using it in a wider range of contexts going forwards. Of the three discussed contexts, the greatest uncertainty was shown about using ChatGPT in education. Pros and cons were raised during discussion for the use of this technology in education, research, and healthcare.

DISCUSSION

There was a range of perspectives around the uses of ChatGPT in education, research, and healthcare, with still much uncertainty around its acceptability and optimal uses. There were different perspectives from respondents of different roles (trainee vs faculty vs staff). More discussion is needed to explore perceptions around the use of LLMs such as ChatGPT in vital sectors such as education, healthcare and research. Given involved risks and unforeseen challenges, taking a thoughtful and measured approach in adoption would reduce the likelihood of harm.

Accuracy and Reliability of Chatbot Responses to Physician Questions

Importance

Natural language processing tools, such as ChatGPT (generative pretrained transformer, hereafter referred to as chatbot), have the potential to radically enhance the accessibility of medical information for health professionals and patients. Assessing the safety and efficacy of these tools in answering physician-generated questions is critical to determining their suitability in clinical settings, facilitating complex decision-making, and optimizing health care efficiency.

Objective

To assess the accuracy and comprehensiveness of chatbot-generated responses to physician-developed medical queries, highlighting the reliability and limitations of artificial intelligence-generated medical information.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Thirty-three physicians across 17 specialties generated 284 medical questions that they subjectively classified as easy, medium, or hard with either binary (yes or no) or descriptive answers. The physicians then graded the chatbot-generated answers to these questions for accuracy (6-point Likert scale with 1 being completely incorrect and 6 being completely correct) and completeness (3-point Likert scale, with 1 being incomplete and 3 being complete plus additional context). Scores were summarized with descriptive statistics and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or the Kruskal-Wallis test. The study (including data analysis) was conducted from January to May 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Accuracy, completeness, and consistency over time and between 2 different versions (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) of chatbot-generated medical responses.

Results

Across all questions (n = 284) generated by 33 physicians (31 faculty members and 2 recent graduates from residency or fellowship programs) across 17 specialties, the median accuracy score was 5.5 (IQR, 4.0-6.0) (between almost completely and complete correct) with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (1.6) (between mostly and almost completely correct). The median completeness score was 3.0 (IQR, 2.0-3.0) (complete and comprehensive) with a mean (SD) score of 2.5 (0.7). For questions rated easy, medium, and hard, the median accuracy scores were 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-6.0), 5.5 (IQR, 5.0-6.0), and 5.0 (IQR, 4.0-6.0), respectively (mean [SD] scores were 5.0 [1.5], 4.7 [1.7], and 4.6 [1.6], respectively; P = .05). Accuracy scores for binary and descriptive questions were similar (median score, 6.0 [IQR, 4.0-6.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.4-6.0]; mean [SD] score, 4.9 [1.6] vs 4.7 [1.6]; P = .07). Of 36 questions with scores of 1.0 to 2.0, 34 were requeried or regraded 8 to 17 days later with substantial improvement (median score 2.0 [IQR, 1.0-3.0] vs 4.0 [IQR, 2.0-5.3]; P < .01). A subset of questions, regardless of initial scores (version 3.5), were regenerated and rescored using version 4 with improvement (mean accuracy [SD] score, 5.2 [1.5] vs 5.7 [0.8]; median score, 6.0 [IQR, 5.0-6.0] for original and 6.0 [IQR, 6.0-6.0] for rescored; P = .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, chatbot generated largely accurate information to diverse medical queries as judged by academic physician specialists with improvement over time, although it had important limitations. Further research and model development are needed to correct inaccuracies and for validation.

Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association's policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence in submissions

With the arrival of ChatGPT, the academic community has expressed concerns about how generative artificial intelligence will be used by students and researchers alike. After consulting policies from other journals and discussing among the editorial team, we have created a policy on the use of AI on submissions to JMLA. This editorial provides a brief background on these concerns and introduces our policy.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor

The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal.

The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various domains, including education and research. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques and large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 and BARD have significantly advanced our comprehension and application of AI in these fields. This paper provides an in-depth introduction to AI, NLP, and LLMs, discussing their potential impact on education and research. By exploring the advantages, challenges, and innovative applications of these technologies, this review gives educators, researchers, students, and readers a comprehensive view of how AI could shape educational and research practices in the future, ultimately leading to improved outcomes. Key applications discussed in the field of research include text generation, data analysis and interpretation, literature review, formatting and editing, and peer review. AI applications in academics and education include educational support and constructive feedback, assessment, grading, tailored curricula, personalized career guidance, and mental health support. Addressing the challenges associated with these technologies, such as ethical concerns and algorithmic biases, is essential for maximizing their potential to improve education and research outcomes. Ultimately, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the role of AI in education and research and highlight its potential to lead to better outcomes for students, educators, and researchers.

Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers

Large language models such as ChatGPT can produce increasingly realistic text, with unknown information on the accuracy and integrity of using these models in scientific writing. We gathered fifth research abstracts from five high-impact factor medical journals and asked ChatGPT to generate research abstracts based on their titles and journals. Most generated abstracts were detected using an AI output detector, 'GPT-2 Output Detector', with % 'fake' scores (higher meaning more likely to be generated) of median [interquartile range] of 99.98% 'fake' [12.73%, 99.98%] compared with median 0.02% [IQR 0.02%, 0.09%] for the original abstracts. The AUROC of the AI output detector was 0.94. Generated abstracts scored lower than original abstracts when run through a plagiarism detector website and iThenticate (higher scores meaning more matching text found). When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as being generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated. Reviewers indicated that it was surprisingly difficult to differentiate between the two, though abstracts they suspected were generated were vaguer and more formulaic. ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data. Depending on publisher-specific guidelines, AI output detectors may serve as an editorial tool to help maintain scientific standards. The boundaries of ethical and acceptable use of large language models to help scientific writing are still being discussed, and different journals and conferences are adopting varying policies.

Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers

ChatGPT, a chatbot released by OpenAI in November 2022, has rocked academia with its capacity to generate papers "good enough" for academic journals. Major journals such as Nature and professional societies such as the World Association of Medical Editors have moved fast to issue policies to ban or curb AI-written papers. Amid the flurry of policy initiatives, one important challenge seems to be overlooked: AI-generated papers are not easily discernible to the human eye, and we lack the right tools to implement the policies. Without such tools, the well-intentioned policies are likely to remain on paper.

Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria

This letter to the editor suggests adding a technical point to the new editorial policy expounded by Hosseini et al. on the mandatory disclosure of any use of natural language processing (NLP) systems, or generative AI, in writing scholarly publications. Such AI systems should naturally also be forbidden from being named as authors, because they would not have fulfilled prevailing authorship guidelines (such as the widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria).