Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Passive Contribution of ChatGPT to Scientific Papers

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References:

  1. Ali, M. No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 69:36–41, 2021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Macfarlane, G. J. What to do about … authorship? Br. J. Pain. 15:249–250, 2021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wager, E. Recognition, reward and responsibility: Why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas. 62:109–112, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sengupta, S., and S. Honavar. Publication ethics. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 65:429–432, 2017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kamali, N., F. Rahimi, and A. Talebi Bezmin Abadi. Learning from retracted papers authored by the highly cited Iran-affiliated researchers: Revisiting research policies and a key message to Clarivate Analytics. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 28:18, 2022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nath, S. B., S. C. Marcus, and B. G. Druss. Retractions in the research literature: Misconduct or mistakes? Med. J. Aust. 185:152–154, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clement, T. P. Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 20:345–361, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Alfonso, F. Authorship: From credit to accountability. Neth. Heart J. 27:289–296, 2019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Fleming, N. The authorship rows that sour scientific collaborations. Nature. 594:459–462, 2021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scientific Integrity Committee of Swiss Academies of Arts And Sciences, C. W. Hess, C. Brückner, T. Kaiser, A. Mauron, W. Wahli, U. J. Wenzel, and M. Salathé. Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations. Swiss Med. Wkly. 145:w14108, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cozzarelli, N. R. Responsible authorship of papers in PNAS. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101:10495–10495, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Das, N., and S. Das. ‘Author Contribution Details’ and not ‘Authorship Sequence’ as a merit to determine credit: A need to relook at the current Indian practice. Natl. Med. J. India. 33:24–30, 2020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith, E., and B. Williams-Jones. Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 18:199–212, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Biswas, S. ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Radiology. 307:223312, 2023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Teixeira da Silva J. A. Is ChatGPT a valid author? Nurse Educ. Pract. 68: 103600, 2023.

  16. Dagan, A., T. H. Kung, M. Cheatham, A. Medenilla, C. Sillos, L. De Leon, C. Elepaño, M. Madriaga, R. Aggabao, G. Diaz-Candido, J. Maningo, and V. Tseng. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLoS Digit. Health. 2:e0000198, 2023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chavez M. R., T. S. Butler, P. Rekawek, H. Heo and W. L. Kinzler. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer: Why we should embrace this technology. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023.

  18. Pavlik, J. V. Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journal. Mass Commun. Educ. 78:84–93, 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Thorp, H. H. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 379:313–313, 2023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liebrenz, M., R. Schleifer, A. Buadze, D. Bhugra, and A. Smith. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: Ethical challenges for medical publishing. Lancet Digit. Health. 5:e105–e106, 2023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zielinski, C., M. Winker, R. Aggarwal, L. Ferris, M. Heinemann, J. J. F. Lapeña, S. Pai, E. Ing, and L. Citrome. Chatbots, ChatGPT, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in relation to scholarly publications. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 11:83–86, 2023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brainard, J. Journals take up arms against AI-written text. Science. 379:740–741, 2023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hosseini, M., L. M. Rasmussen, and D. B. Resnik. Using AI to write scholarly publications. Acc. Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. No author listed. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature. 613:612–612, 2023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Flanagin, A., K. Bibbins-Domingo, M. Berkwits, and S. L. Christiansen. Nonhuman “Authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA. 329:637–639, 2023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. ICMJE. Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2023. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed 8 March 2023

  27. National Health and Medical Research Council. Authorship: A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government, 2019.

  28. Wager, E., and S. Kleinert. Why do we need international standards on responsible research publication for authors and editors? J Glob Health. 3:020301, 2013.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Ngunnawal and Ngambri Country, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Farid Rahimi

  2. Department of Bacteriology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Amin Talebi Bezmin Abadi

Authors
  1. Farid Rahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amin Talebi Bezmin Abadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farid Rahimi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Associate Editor Stefan M. Duma oversaw the review of this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahimi, F., Talebi Bezmin Abadi, A. Passive Contribution of ChatGPT to Scientific Papers. Ann Biomed Eng 51, 2340–2350 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03260-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03260-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation