ChatGPT isn't an author, but a contribution taxonomy is needed.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Y Suchikova, N Tsybuliak
{"title":"ChatGPT isn't an author, but a contribution taxonomy is needed.","authors":"Y Suchikova, N Tsybuliak","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2405039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The increasing use of AI tools, particularly large language models like ChatGPT, in academic research has raised significant questions about authorship and transparency. This commentary emphasizes the need for a standardized AI contributions taxonomy to clarify AI's role in producing and publishing research outputs, ensuring ethical standards and maintaining academic integrity.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We propose adapting the NIST AI Use Taxonomy and incorporating categories that reflect AI's use in tasks such as hypothesis generation, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and ethical oversight. Findings: Establishing an AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would address inconsistencies in AI disclosure, enhance transparency, and uphold accountability in research. It would help differentiate between AI-assisted and human-led tasks, providing more explicit attribution of contributions.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Establishing an AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would address inconsistencies in AI disclosure, enhance transparency, and uphold accountability in research. It would help differentiate between AI-assisted and human-led tasks, providing more explicit attribution of contributions.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>The proposed taxonomy would offer researchers and journals a standardized method for disclosing AI's role in academic work, promoting responsible and transparent reporting aligned with ethical guidelines from COPE and ICMJE.</p><p><strong>Value: </strong>A well-defined AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would foster transparency and trust in using AI in research, ensuring that AI's role is appropriately acknowledged while preserving academic integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2405039","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The increasing use of AI tools, particularly large language models like ChatGPT, in academic research has raised significant questions about authorship and transparency. This commentary emphasizes the need for a standardized AI contributions taxonomy to clarify AI's role in producing and publishing research outputs, ensuring ethical standards and maintaining academic integrity.

Approach: We propose adapting the NIST AI Use Taxonomy and incorporating categories that reflect AI's use in tasks such as hypothesis generation, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and ethical oversight. Findings: Establishing an AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would address inconsistencies in AI disclosure, enhance transparency, and uphold accountability in research. It would help differentiate between AI-assisted and human-led tasks, providing more explicit attribution of contributions.

Findings: Establishing an AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would address inconsistencies in AI disclosure, enhance transparency, and uphold accountability in research. It would help differentiate between AI-assisted and human-led tasks, providing more explicit attribution of contributions.

Practical implications: The proposed taxonomy would offer researchers and journals a standardized method for disclosing AI's role in academic work, promoting responsible and transparent reporting aligned with ethical guidelines from COPE and ICMJE.

Value: A well-defined AI contributions taxonomy for the production and publication of research output would foster transparency and trust in using AI in research, ensuring that AI's role is appropriately acknowledged while preserving academic integrity.

ChatGPT 不是作者,但需要一个贡献分类法。
目的:在学术研究中越来越多地使用人工智能工具,尤其是像 ChatGPT 这样的大型语言模型,引发了有关作者身份和透明度的重大问题。本评论强调,有必要制定标准化的人工智能贡献分类标准,以明确人工智能在生产和发布研究成果、确保道德标准和维护学术诚信方面的作用:我们建议改编美国国家标准与技术研究院(NIST)的人工智能使用分类标准,并纳入反映人工智能在假设生成、数据分析、稿件准备和伦理监督等任务中使用情况的类别。研究结果为研究成果的生产和出版建立一个人工智能贡献分类标准,将解决人工智能披露中的不一致问题,提高透明度,并维护研究中的问责制。它将有助于区分人工智能辅助任务和人类主导任务,提供更明确的贡献归属:为研究成果的生产和出版建立人工智能贡献分类法,将解决人工智能披露中的不一致问题,提高透明度,并维护研究中的问责制。它将有助于区分人工智能辅助任务和人类主导任务,提供更明确的贡献归属:拟议的分类法将为研究人员和期刊提供一种标准化的方法,用于披露人工智能在学术工作中的作用,促进符合 COPE 和 ICMJE 道德准则的负责任和透明的报告:价值:为研究成果的生产和出版制定一个定义明确的人工智能贡献分类法,将提高在研究中使用人工智能的透明度和信任度,确保人工智能的作用得到适当承认,同时维护学术诚信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信