ChatGPT 还是双子座:谁是更好的科学写作助手?

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS
Hatoon S. AlSagri, Faiza Farhat, Shahab Saquib Sohail, Abdul Khader Jilani Saudagar
{"title":"ChatGPT 还是双子座:谁是更好的科学写作助手?","authors":"Hatoon S. AlSagri, Faiza Farhat, Shahab Saquib Sohail, Abdul Khader Jilani Saudagar","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09549-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The rapid evolution of scientific research has created a pressing need for efficient and versatile tools to aid researchers. While using artificial intelligence (AI) to write scientific articles is unethical and unreliable due to the potential for inaccuracy, AI can be a valuable tool for assisting with other aspects of research, such as language editing, reference formatting, and journal finding. Two of the latest AI-driven assistants that have become indispensable assets to scientists are ChatGPT and Gemini (Bard). These assistants offer comprehensive support from literature review to journal suggestion, and they have the potential to revolutionize research. In the present study, a comprehensive set of queries and responses were designed to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini as scientific assistants. The results showed that Gemini achieved a perfect score of 100%, while ChatGPT-3.5 scored a less impressive 70%. Notably, ChatGP-3.5 fell short in specific areas that includes providing assistance with scientific paper explanations, exploring bibliographic databases, and formatting references. The qualitative assessment of responses also suggests that both the AI chatbots can be valuable tools for researchers, however, Gemini seems to be more appealing and accurate through the whole procedure of scientific writing. This work shall open new research dimensions in identifying adequate scientific utilization of the evolving AI tools and technologies, as embracing these advancements will be essential for staying at the forefront of scientific research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better Scientific Writing Assistant?\",\"authors\":\"Hatoon S. AlSagri, Faiza Farhat, Shahab Saquib Sohail, Abdul Khader Jilani Saudagar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-024-09549-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The rapid evolution of scientific research has created a pressing need for efficient and versatile tools to aid researchers. While using artificial intelligence (AI) to write scientific articles is unethical and unreliable due to the potential for inaccuracy, AI can be a valuable tool for assisting with other aspects of research, such as language editing, reference formatting, and journal finding. Two of the latest AI-driven assistants that have become indispensable assets to scientists are ChatGPT and Gemini (Bard). These assistants offer comprehensive support from literature review to journal suggestion, and they have the potential to revolutionize research. In the present study, a comprehensive set of queries and responses were designed to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini as scientific assistants. The results showed that Gemini achieved a perfect score of 100%, while ChatGPT-3.5 scored a less impressive 70%. Notably, ChatGP-3.5 fell short in specific areas that includes providing assistance with scientific paper explanations, exploring bibliographic databases, and formatting references. The qualitative assessment of responses also suggests that both the AI chatbots can be valuable tools for researchers, however, Gemini seems to be more appealing and accurate through the whole procedure of scientific writing. This work shall open new research dimensions in identifying adequate scientific utilization of the evolving AI tools and technologies, as embracing these advancements will be essential for staying at the forefront of scientific research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09549-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09549-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学研究的飞速发展迫切需要高效、多功能的工具来帮助研究人员。虽然使用人工智能(AI)撰写科学论文既不道德也不可靠,因为有可能出现不准确的情况,但人工智能可以成为协助研究工作其他方面的宝贵工具,如语言编辑、参考文献格式化和期刊查找等。ChatGPT 和 Gemini(Bard)是最新的人工智能辅助工具,它们已成为科学家不可或缺的资产。这些助手提供了从文献综述到期刊建议的全面支持,有望彻底改变科研工作。在本研究中,为了评估 ChatGPT-3.5 和 Gemini 作为科学助手的能力,设计了一套全面的询问和回答。结果显示,Gemini 获得了 100% 的满分,而 ChatGPT-3.5 则只有 70% 的分数。值得注意的是,ChatGP-3.5 在一些特定领域存在不足,包括在科学论文解释、探索书目数据库和参考文献格式化方面提供帮助。对回答的定性评估也表明,这两个人工智能聊天机器人都可以成为研究人员的宝贵工具,但在整个科学写作过程中,Gemini 似乎更有吸引力,也更准确。这项工作将为确定如何充分科学地利用不断发展的人工智能工具和技术开辟新的研究领域,因为拥抱这些进步对保持科研领先地位至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better Scientific Writing Assistant?

ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better Scientific Writing Assistant?

The rapid evolution of scientific research has created a pressing need for efficient and versatile tools to aid researchers. While using artificial intelligence (AI) to write scientific articles is unethical and unreliable due to the potential for inaccuracy, AI can be a valuable tool for assisting with other aspects of research, such as language editing, reference formatting, and journal finding. Two of the latest AI-driven assistants that have become indispensable assets to scientists are ChatGPT and Gemini (Bard). These assistants offer comprehensive support from literature review to journal suggestion, and they have the potential to revolutionize research. In the present study, a comprehensive set of queries and responses were designed to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini as scientific assistants. The results showed that Gemini achieved a perfect score of 100%, while ChatGPT-3.5 scored a less impressive 70%. Notably, ChatGP-3.5 fell short in specific areas that includes providing assistance with scientific paper explanations, exploring bibliographic databases, and formatting references. The qualitative assessment of responses also suggests that both the AI chatbots can be valuable tools for researchers, however, Gemini seems to be more appealing and accurate through the whole procedure of scientific writing. This work shall open new research dimensions in identifying adequate scientific utilization of the evolving AI tools and technologies, as embracing these advancements will be essential for staying at the forefront of scientific research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
×
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