人工智能作为作者:科学审稿人能否识别gpt - 40生成的手稿?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
American Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-30 DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.034
Ahmet Öztürk, Anılcan Tahsin Karahan, Serkan Günay, Abdul Samed Erdal, Seval Komut, Erdal Komut, Yavuz Yiğit
{"title":"人工智能作为作者:科学审稿人能否识别gpt - 40生成的手稿?","authors":"Ahmet Öztürk, Anılcan Tahsin Karahan, Serkan Günay, Abdul Samed Erdal, Seval Komut, Erdal Komut, Yavuz Yiğit","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a natural language processing model. It can be argued that ChatGPT has recently begun to assume the role of a technological assistant capable of supporting academics in the process of scientific writing. ChatGPT may contribute to the spread of incorrect or incomplete information within academic literature, leading to conceptual confusion and potential academic misconduct. The aim of this study is to determine whether a scientific article entirely generated by an AI application such as ChatGPT can be detected by an academic journal editor or peer reviewer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted between November 1, 2024, and December 1, 2024. GPT-4o, was utilized in this study. ChatGPT was instructed to write a scientific article focused on predicting mortality and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA cases. The manuscript written by ChatGPT-4o was sent to 14 different reviewers who had previously served as reviewers or editors. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the manuscript as if they were an SCI-E journal editor or peer reviewer. The reviewers were informed that the article had been written by ChatGPT and were asked whether they had identified this during their review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the reviewers, 42.9 % (n = 6) decided to reject the manuscript at the editorial stage, whereas another 42.9 % (n = 6) opted to forward it to a peer reviewer. During the peer review stage, 42.9 % (n = 6) of the reviewers recommended rejection, while 28.6 % (n = 4) suggested major revisions. 78.6 % (n = 11) of the reviewers did not realize that the manuscript had been generated by an artificial intelligence model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of our study highlight the necessity for journal editors and peer reviewers to be well-informed about ChatGPT and to develop systems capable of identifying whether a manuscript has been written by a human or generated by artificial intelligence.</p>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"97 ","pages":"216-219"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence as author: Can scientific reviewers recognize GPT-4o-generated manuscripts?\",\"authors\":\"Ahmet Öztürk, Anılcan Tahsin Karahan, Serkan Günay, Abdul Samed Erdal, Seval Komut, Erdal Komut, Yavuz Yiğit\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a natural language processing model. It can be argued that ChatGPT has recently begun to assume the role of a technological assistant capable of supporting academics in the process of scientific writing. ChatGPT may contribute to the spread of incorrect or incomplete information within academic literature, leading to conceptual confusion and potential academic misconduct. The aim of this study is to determine whether a scientific article entirely generated by an AI application such as ChatGPT can be detected by an academic journal editor or peer reviewer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted between November 1, 2024, and December 1, 2024. GPT-4o, was utilized in this study. ChatGPT was instructed to write a scientific article focused on predicting mortality and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA cases. The manuscript written by ChatGPT-4o was sent to 14 different reviewers who had previously served as reviewers or editors. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the manuscript as if they were an SCI-E journal editor or peer reviewer. The reviewers were informed that the article had been written by ChatGPT and were asked whether they had identified this during their review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the reviewers, 42.9 % (n = 6) decided to reject the manuscript at the editorial stage, whereas another 42.9 % (n = 6) opted to forward it to a peer reviewer. During the peer review stage, 42.9 % (n = 6) of the reviewers recommended rejection, while 28.6 % (n = 4) suggested major revisions. 78.6 % (n = 11) of the reviewers did not realize that the manuscript had been generated by an artificial intelligence model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of our study highlight the necessity for journal editors and peer reviewers to be well-informed about ChatGPT and to develop systems capable of identifying whether a manuscript has been written by a human or generated by artificial intelligence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"97 \",\"pages\":\"216-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.034\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

聊天生成预训练转换器(ChatGPT)是一个自然语言处理模型。可以说,ChatGPT最近开始扮演技术助手的角色,能够在科学写作的过程中支持学者。ChatGPT可能会在学术文献中传播不正确或不完整的信息,导致概念混淆和潜在的学术不端行为。这项研究的目的是确定一篇完全由ChatGPT等人工智能应用程序生成的科学文章是否可以被学术期刊编辑或同行审稿人检测到。方法:研究时间为2024年11月1日至2024年12月1日。本研究采用gpt - 40。ChatGPT被要求撰写一篇关于预测OHCA病例死亡率和自然循环恢复(ROSC)的科学文章。chatgpt - 40撰写的手稿被发送给14位不同的审稿人,这些审稿人以前担任过审稿人或编辑。审稿人被要求以SCI-E期刊编辑或同行审稿人的身份评估稿件。审稿人被告知这篇文章是由ChatGPT撰写的,并被问及他们是否在审稿过程中发现了这一点。结果:在审稿人中,42.9% (n = 6)的审稿人在编辑阶段决定拒绝稿件,另有42.9% (n = 6)的审稿人选择将稿件转发给同行审稿人。在同行评审阶段,42.9% (n = 6)的审稿人建议拒绝,28.6% (n = 4)的审稿人建议重大修改。78.6% (n = 11)的审稿人没有意识到稿件是由人工智能模型生成的。结论:我们的研究结果强调了期刊编辑和同行审稿人充分了解ChatGPT的必要性,并开发能够识别手稿是由人类撰写还是由人工智能生成的系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence as author: Can scientific reviewers recognize GPT-4o-generated manuscripts?

Introduction: Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a natural language processing model. It can be argued that ChatGPT has recently begun to assume the role of a technological assistant capable of supporting academics in the process of scientific writing. ChatGPT may contribute to the spread of incorrect or incomplete information within academic literature, leading to conceptual confusion and potential academic misconduct. The aim of this study is to determine whether a scientific article entirely generated by an AI application such as ChatGPT can be detected by an academic journal editor or peer reviewer.

Methods: This study was conducted between November 1, 2024, and December 1, 2024. GPT-4o, was utilized in this study. ChatGPT was instructed to write a scientific article focused on predicting mortality and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA cases. The manuscript written by ChatGPT-4o was sent to 14 different reviewers who had previously served as reviewers or editors. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the manuscript as if they were an SCI-E journal editor or peer reviewer. The reviewers were informed that the article had been written by ChatGPT and were asked whether they had identified this during their review.

Results: Among the reviewers, 42.9 % (n = 6) decided to reject the manuscript at the editorial stage, whereas another 42.9 % (n = 6) opted to forward it to a peer reviewer. During the peer review stage, 42.9 % (n = 6) of the reviewers recommended rejection, while 28.6 % (n = 4) suggested major revisions. 78.6 % (n = 11) of the reviewers did not realize that the manuscript had been generated by an artificial intelligence model.

Conclusion: The findings of our study highlight the necessity for journal editors and peer reviewers to be well-informed about ChatGPT and to develop systems capable of identifying whether a manuscript has been written by a human or generated by artificial intelligence.

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
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信