The Bot Delusion. Large language models and anticipated consequences for academics’ publication and citation behavior

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Oliver Wieczorek , Isabel Steinhardt , Rebecca Schmidt , Sylvi Mauermeister , Christian Schneijderberg
{"title":"The Bot Delusion. Large language models and anticipated consequences for academics’ publication and citation behavior","authors":"Oliver Wieczorek ,&nbsp;Isabel Steinhardt ,&nbsp;Rebecca Schmidt ,&nbsp;Sylvi Mauermeister ,&nbsp;Christian Schneijderberg","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The present paper discusses the extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) may affect the scientific enterprise, reinforcing or mitigating existing structural inequalities expressed by the Matthew Effect and introducing a “bot delusion” in academia. In a theory-led thought experiment, we first focus on the academic publication and citation system and develop three scenarios of the anticipated consequences of using LLMs: reproducing content and status quo (Scenario 1), enabling content coherence evaluation (Scenario 2) and content evaluation (Scenario 3). Second, we discuss the interaction between the use of LLMs and academic (counter)norms for citation selection and their impact on the publication and citation system. Finally, we introduce communal counter-norms to capture academics’ loyal citation behavior and develop three future scenarios that academia may face when LLMs are widely used in the research process, namely status quo future of science, mixed-access future, and open science future.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"166 ","pages":"Article 103537"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724002209","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present paper discusses the extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) may affect the scientific enterprise, reinforcing or mitigating existing structural inequalities expressed by the Matthew Effect and introducing a “bot delusion” in academia. In a theory-led thought experiment, we first focus on the academic publication and citation system and develop three scenarios of the anticipated consequences of using LLMs: reproducing content and status quo (Scenario 1), enabling content coherence evaluation (Scenario 2) and content evaluation (Scenario 3). Second, we discuss the interaction between the use of LLMs and academic (counter)norms for citation selection and their impact on the publication and citation system. Finally, we introduce communal counter-norms to capture academics’ loyal citation behavior and develop three future scenarios that academia may face when LLMs are widely used in the research process, namely status quo future of science, mixed-access future, and open science future.
机器人错觉。大型语言模型及其对学者发表和引用行为的预期影响
本文讨论了大型语言模型(LLMs)在多大程度上可能影响科学事业,加强或减轻马太效应所表达的现有结构性不平等,并在学术界引入“机器人错觉”。在一个以理论为主导的思想实验中,我们首先关注学术出版和引文系统,并制定了使用法学硕士的预期后果的三种场景:再现内容和现状(场景1),实现内容一致性评估(场景2)和内容评估(场景3)。其次,我们讨论了法学硕士的使用与引文选择的学术(反)规范之间的相互作用及其对出版和引文系统的影响。最后,我们引入公共反规范来捕捉学者的忠诚引文行为,并提出法学硕士在研究过程中被广泛使用时学术界可能面临的三种未来情景,即科学的现状未来、混合获取未来和开放科学未来。
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
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
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