ArticleAccountability in research2024
Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria.
Article in Accountability in research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The accuracy-bias trade-offs in AI text detection tools and their impact on fairness in scholarly publication.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Investigating viewer engagement in esports through motivation and attitudes toward metaverse and NFTs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Using the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer in academic writing in health: a scoping review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Article
- The Intersection of ChatGPT, Clinical Medicine, and Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive Survey of ChatGPT: Advancements, Applications, Prospects, and Challenges.Meta-radiology · 2023Article
- Perception of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (Chat-GPT) AI tool amongst MSK clinicians.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Article
- ChatGPT's influence on customer experience in digital marketing: Investigating the moderating roles.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The underappreciated wrong of AIgiarism - bypass plagiarism that risks propagation of erroneous and bias content.EXCLI journal · 2023Article
- Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: a review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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).
Indexed as
Identifiers
36748354What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.