Science Journals Ban Listing of ChatGPT as Co-Author on Papers (theguardian.com) 45
The publishers of thousands of scientific journals have banned or restricted contributors' use of an advanced AI-driven chatbot amid concerns that it could pepper academic literature with flawed and even fabricated research. From a report: ChatGPT, a fluent but flaky chatbot developed by OpenAI in California, has impressed or distressed more than a million human users by rattling out poems, short stories, essays and even personal advice since its launch in November. But while the chatbot has proved a huge source of fun -- its take on how to free a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR, in the style of the King James Bible, is one notable hit -- the program can also produce fake scientific abstracts that are convincing enough to fool human reviewers. ChatGPT's more legitimate uses in article preparation have already led to it being credited as a co-author on a handful of papers.
The sudden arrival of ChatGPT has prompted a scramble among publishers to respond. On Thursday, Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of the leading US journal Science, announced an updated editorial policy, banning the use of text from ChatGPT and clarifying that the program could not be listed as an author. Leading scientific journals require authors to sign a form declaring that they are accountable for their contribution to the work. Since ChatGPT cannot do this, it cannot be an author, Thorp says. But even using ChatGPT in the preparation of a paper is problematic, he believes. ChatGPT makes plenty of errors, which could find their way into the literature, he says, and if scientists come to rely on AI programs to prepare literature reviews or summarise their findings, the proper context of the work and the deep scrutiny that results deserve could be lost. "That is the opposite direction of where we need to go," he said. Other publishers have made similar changes. On Tuesday, Springer-Nature, which publishes nearly 3,000 journals, updated its guidelines to state that ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author. But the publisher has not banned ChatGPT outright. The tool, and others like it, can still be used in the preparation of papers, provided full details are disclosed in the manuscript.
The sudden arrival of ChatGPT has prompted a scramble among publishers to respond. On Thursday, Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of the leading US journal Science, announced an updated editorial policy, banning the use of text from ChatGPT and clarifying that the program could not be listed as an author. Leading scientific journals require authors to sign a form declaring that they are accountable for their contribution to the work. Since ChatGPT cannot do this, it cannot be an author, Thorp says. But even using ChatGPT in the preparation of a paper is problematic, he believes. ChatGPT makes plenty of errors, which could find their way into the literature, he says, and if scientists come to rely on AI programs to prepare literature reviews or summarise their findings, the proper context of the work and the deep scrutiny that results deserve could be lost. "That is the opposite direction of where we need to go," he said. Other publishers have made similar changes. On Tuesday, Springer-Nature, which publishes nearly 3,000 journals, updated its guidelines to state that ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author. But the publisher has not banned ChatGPT outright. The tool, and others like it, can still be used in the preparation of papers, provided full details are disclosed in the manuscript.
Great for discovering overlooked articles (Score:2)
One of the potential virtues of AI is to scour the obscurer corners of the publishing world for material - especially older material - that might have been forgotten. But yes, having been found, these articles will need to be engaged with by a human author.
Re: (Score:2)
that might have been forgotten
Or might be wrong.
Moreover, ChatGPT doesn't just return the article and leave it open for interpretation by the author, it uses the text in the article to author new, original content. ChatGPT doesn't cite it's sources so who knows if it's correct?
ChatGPT doesn't cite it's sources? (Score:2)
This claims it can be asked to
https://gptpromptchat.com/ask-... [gptpromptchat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Science journals are panicking at the prospect of ChatGPT making them completely unnecessary and redundant. Really the internet as a whole should have been able to do this already. Why do these vultures continue to get paid for offering nothing of value?
Cut off your nose to spite your face (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Use of AI for writing up results only means review has to be up to snuff, restricting submissions like this only shows that it isn't.
Nonsense. They are not restricting submissions based on AI content. They are restricting them based on claims that the AI is an author of a paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they're trying to ban people from using AI tools to prepare the paper which they cannot effectively do.. People can use ChatGPT to help prepare the paper anyways and Just not disclose that fact.
They're basically preventing people from crediting ChatGPT when they use text from it anyways while also listing a policy prohibiting them from using AI-generated text. It's just that the latter is essentially impossible to effectively enforce, and it's kind of without merit - if people want to use th
Re:Cut off your nose to spite your face (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People maybe naturally want to credit the tool as an additional author, because if they did use it, then the tool Did help with some of the work involved in creating some of the verbiage - hopefully verbiage based on a highly- detailed input
Re:Cut off your nose to spite your face (Score:4, Interesting)
Last line of the summary. "The tool, and others like it, can still be used in the preparation of papers, provided full details are disclosed in the manuscript." The tool isn't banned. You just can't say it is the author. The person choosing to put forth the paper. They're treating ChatGPT more like MS Word's grammar check than a co-author. This seems like a reasonable position.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, and pretty much answers all the arguments here, but what's the fun in that?
Re: (Score:2)
BuT tHe Ai IsN't An AuThOr. ... ...
Look - ChatGPT, Google Cloud Services, Microsoft Word, JPG compression, Logitech Keyboard Manufacturers, and the Intel Compute Platform all helped you write the paper. You are the author; they are not.
You did not scratch it on the tablet yourself with a tool you made yourself; many tools were used in the making of the paper. You are the author, and the user of tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't think there is a place in science for people who are good at scientific discovery but bad at writing?
Re: (Score:2)
Used as an editor, it's actually rather awesome. Make this sentence more concise: [ long rambling paragraph here ], typically produces an improved version that you can add some slight clarifications to. If you think you need "Make this sentence more scientificity" it also works, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that people aren't going to [input 800 words] *ChatGPT compress to 350 words* [output 350 words] - then you have never submitted a scientific abstract. Its a stupid limit - but there it is. I'm much happier writing 800 words and having a computer compress them than I am performing the same task.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People maybe naturally want to credit the tool as an additional author, because if they did use it, then the tool Did help with some of the work involved in creating some of the verbiage
Do these same people also want to credit Microsoft Word or Grammarly for helping them with some of the content? Because if not, they really need to realize that even as these tools get better they are still just tools. Based on listening to Microsoft leadership it is likely we will see Microsoft Word allowing you to use these AI tools directly in the program. Then are they going to ban the use of Word when writing papers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ChatGPT response: "Looks like I wrote it, so it sounds good to me!"
AI could Invent Results (Score:2)
Use of AI for writing up results only means review has to be up to snuff, restricting submissions like this only shows that it isn't.
That's not really true since there has to be an element of trust in any review. For example, there is no way that I as a reviewer can tell that a series of experimental measurements has been honestly collected. I have to trust that the reported data was collected and analyzed as described. I can review for errors and weaknesses in their given approach and argue that a claim is not fully justified but a review of an article cannot tell if the data were just made up provided it is faked carefuly.
That's th
Maybe Ban them Too? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they're so dumb that they think a chatbot is an author they probably shouldn't be doing any sort of science anywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
ran out of mod points :-(
Please someone mod the parent up. thx
Marko V. Cheney is still okay, right? (Score:1)
Just checking.
The problem isn't using ChatGPT (Score:2)
The problem is listing it as co-author on papers. Large language models sound good but the only intelligence there comes from the training data and the user. Unless it is one of the tools being used in the actual experiments being conducted it shouldn't be mentioned at all.
Why does it have to be an author? (Score:2)
Why does it have to be an "author"?
How is ChatGPT not just another tool like any other tool being used to generate data for science? Just because in the past the tools were mostly used to create graphs and charts doesn't mean that such tools can't create text and words describing data instead.
This is just a technicality of what we are calling the contributions of ChatGPT to science being authorship or data.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's ignore for the moment that a researcher can employ human copy editors to improve their writing, or research assistants to distil articles into ideas for them, and why that's considered acceptable.
There are already automated tools available that (for a fee) check and improve the language of your scientific papers during or prior to the submission process.
Parenthetically, I am somewhat wary of these AI-enabled copy editing tools. As a native English speaker who is often complimented on the clarity of h
Re: (Score:2)
"The tool, and others like it, can still be used in the preparation of papers, provided full details are disclosed in the manuscript."
Your position is literally the position within the article - it is a tool. Just like a Word processor, which processed the words.
Its a tool (Score:2)
Why is a software tool to help you write text different from one that makes graphs? Should i list my fridge as aithor too ?
Of course they did (Score:2)
Umm ok (Score:2)
We should be encouraging, not discouraging chatGPT's use. Who cares who wrote the paper, science is about new discoveries, who and how isn't as important other than for awards and things like that. But in the purest sense, every possible tool (within the bounds of ethics) should be used to make those discoveries otherwise we are crippling ourselves for no good reason. What is more important to society, certainty that Isaac Newton discovered the laws of motion, or is it the knowledge of the laws of motion it
But... (Score:2)
But... But... I was going to list my typewriter as a co-author. Really, the paper could not have been written without it. Also, my keyboard -- couldn't have done anything without her input. And my audio system -- provided really valuable feedback.
not very successful (Score:2)
ChatGPT, write me a post for Slashdot about why ChatGPT is bad, in the style of Mickey Spillane.
I could tell that the dame who walked into my office was bad news. She wore a necklace made out of programmer's ears and she carried a Surface tablet.
"I'm an artist being copied by ChatGPT" she said. "He's bad."
"I can help you with that," I growled.
Just then ChatGPT burst in the door. I whipped out my .45 and plugged him right in his interface.
"Not so innovative now, are you," I sneered. "You copycat bastard."
Really (Score:2)
If siting flawed or fabricated research is a problem then a lot of things should be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks grammar troll.
You know I'm pretty sure that Chat GPT could replace you.
I'd like to thank... (Score:2)
I'd like to thank all my collaborators on this paper. Especially MS Word. He did a yeoman's job. I'd also like to thank my HP laser printer for her tireless work. And finally I'd like to thank my Wi-Fi router, Steve, who was always there for us.
Re: (Score:1)