Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz, Asmaa Ali, Ayman Mohamed Maaly, Hany Hassan Ziady, Eman Anwar Sultan, Mohamed Anwar Mahgoub
{"title":"Knowledge, Perceptions and Attitude of Researchers Towards Using ChatGPT in Research.","authors":"Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz, Asmaa Ali, Ayman Mohamed Maaly, Hany Hassan Ziady, Eman Anwar Sultan, Mohamed Anwar Mahgoub","doi":"10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>ChatGPT, a recently released chatbot from OpenAI, has found applications in various aspects of life, including academic research. This study investigated the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of researchers towards using ChatGPT and other chatbots in academic research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pre-designed, self-administered survey using Google Forms was employed to conduct the study. The questionnaire assessed participants' knowledge of ChatGPT and other chatbots, their awareness of current chatbot and artificial intelligence (AI) applications, and their attitudes towards ChatGPT and its potential research uses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred researchers participated in the survey. A majority were female (57.5%), and over two-thirds belonged to the medical field (68%). While 67% had heard of ChatGPT, only 11.5% had employed it in their research, primarily for rephrasing paragraphs and finding references. Interestingly, over one-third supported the notion of listing ChatGPT as an author in scientific publications. Concerns emerged regarding AI's potential to automate researcher tasks, particularly in language editing, statistics, and data analysis. Additionally, roughly half expressed ethical concerns about using AI applications in scientific research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The increasing use of chatbots in academic research necessitates thoughtful regulation that balances potential benefits with inherent limitations and potential risks. Chatbots should not be considered authors of scientific publications but rather assistants to researchers during manuscript preparation and review. Researchers should be equipped with proper training to utilize chatbots and other AI tools effectively and ethically.</p>","PeriodicalId":16338,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Systems","volume":"48 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10899415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: ChatGPT, a recently released chatbot from OpenAI, has found applications in various aspects of life, including academic research. This study investigated the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of researchers towards using ChatGPT and other chatbots in academic research.
Methods: A pre-designed, self-administered survey using Google Forms was employed to conduct the study. The questionnaire assessed participants' knowledge of ChatGPT and other chatbots, their awareness of current chatbot and artificial intelligence (AI) applications, and their attitudes towards ChatGPT and its potential research uses.
Results: Two hundred researchers participated in the survey. A majority were female (57.5%), and over two-thirds belonged to the medical field (68%). While 67% had heard of ChatGPT, only 11.5% had employed it in their research, primarily for rephrasing paragraphs and finding references. Interestingly, over one-third supported the notion of listing ChatGPT as an author in scientific publications. Concerns emerged regarding AI's potential to automate researcher tasks, particularly in language editing, statistics, and data analysis. Additionally, roughly half expressed ethical concerns about using AI applications in scientific research.
Conclusion: The increasing use of chatbots in academic research necessitates thoughtful regulation that balances potential benefits with inherent limitations and potential risks. Chatbots should not be considered authors of scientific publications but rather assistants to researchers during manuscript preparation and review. Researchers should be equipped with proper training to utilize chatbots and other AI tools effectively and ethically.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Medical Systems provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of the increasingly extensive applications of new systems techniques and methods in hospital clinic and physician''s office administration; pathology radiology and pharmaceutical delivery systems; medical records storage and retrieval; and ancillary patient-support systems. The journal publishes informative articles essays and studies across the entire scale of medical systems from large hospital programs to novel small-scale medical services. Education is an integral part of this amalgamation of sciences and selected articles are published in this area. Since existing medical systems are constantly being modified to fit particular circumstances and to solve specific problems the journal includes a special section devoted to status reports on current installations.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
