ChatGPT in the Context of Scientific Communication
https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2023.518
Abstract
Introduction: The growing interest in the potential use of ChatGPT in the field of educational and scientific communication has prompted close attention from the editors of scientific journals, administrators, and educators to limit its impact on potential users. It's clear that a total ban on using ChatGPT in the realities of modern society is impossible, underscoring the need to reach a consensus on acceptable boundaries for its use.
Purpose: To describe the primary opinions of editors of scientific publications and publishers that have emerged around the mechanisms of using content generated by ChatGPT by authors of scientific article manuscripts.
Focus and Boundaries of Neural Networks in the Context of Scientific Communication: The established status quo concerning the partially permissible reliance on content generated by ChatGPT in certain sections of a scientific manuscript, especially those containing less original content, is accompanied by a range of questions about the ethical aspects of involving artificial intelligence in the realm of scientific creativity. One such question pertains to illustrations created by artificial intelligence tools upon an author's request.
Conclusions: Although there is no clear answer to many questions related to the prospects of using neural networks in scientific communication, monitoring the current consensus on the issue will allow researchers to adhere to journal policies, uphold the ethics of scientific communication, and avoid the imitation of creating scientific content.
References
1. Tang G., Cai H., Jia J. (2022) Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: An exploratory study based on mixed methods. Account Res, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2117621 2
2. Hutson M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611(7934), 192–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w
3. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. (2023). Nature, 613(7945), 612. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
4. Stokel-Walker C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
5. Heidt A. (2023). 'Arms race with automation': professors fret about AI-generated coursework. Nature, 10.1038/d41586-023-00204-z. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00204-z
6. Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2023). Using AI to write scholarly publications. Accountability in Research, 1–9. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535
7. Fuster, V., Bozkurt, B., Chandrashekhar, Y., Grapsa, J., Ky, B., Mann, D. L., Moliterno, D. J., Shivkumar, K., Silversides, C. K., Turco, J. V., & Wang, J. (2023). JACC journals' pathway forward with AI tools: The future is now. JACC. Asia, 3(2), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacasi.2023.03.002
8. Tang G. (2023) Letter to editor: Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers. Accountability in Research, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2180359 7
9. Shibayama S., & Wang J. (2019). Measuring originality in science. Scientometrics, 122, 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-019-03263-0
10. Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2023). Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2177160
11. Косычева, М.А. (2023). Редактор как помощник автору при подготовке рукописи к публикации. Обучающий научно-практический семинар «Международные стандарты качества научных публикаций и журналов по сельскому хозяйству и смежным областям», 17 – 20 октября, 2023.
12. Tikhonova, E., & Raitskaya, L. (2023). ChatGPT: Where is a silver lining? Exploring the realm of GPT and large language models. Journal of Language and Education, 9(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.10688
Review
For citations:
Tikhonova E.V. ChatGPT in the Context of Scientific Communication. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2023;(3):8-12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2023.518
Views:
292
Email this article 