基于人类和人工智能的作者:原则和伦理

IF 2.2 3区管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Learned Publishing Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1002/leap.1547

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Panagiotis Tsigaris

{"title":"基于人类和人工智能的作者:原则和伦理","authors":"Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Panagiotis Tsigaris","doi":"10.1002/leap.1547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.</li>\n \n <li>Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human-based authorship model.</li>\n \n <li>Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.</li>\n \n <li>We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.</li>\n \n <li>We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human- and AI-based authorship: Principles and ethics\",\"authors\":\"Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Panagiotis Tsigaris\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/leap.1547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.</li>\\n \\n <li>Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human-based authorship model.</li>\\n \\n <li>Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.</li>\\n \\n <li>We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.</li>\\n \\n <li>We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learned Publishing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learned Publishing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1547\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1547","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 8

摘要

国际医学期刊编辑委员会（ICMJE）对作者身份的建议是指导谁以及在什么情况下可以成为学术论文作者的主要指南。大型语言模型（LLM）和人工智能，如ChatGPT，鉴于其能力和多功能性，对基于人类的作者模型提出了挑战。一些期刊和出版商已经禁止将作者分配给AI、LLM，甚至ChatGPT，不承认他们是有效作者。我们对这一前提进行了辩论，并请ChatGPT就这一问题发表意见。ChatGPT认为自己是一个无效的作者。我们将CRediT标准应用于AI，发现它完全能够满足14个标准中的3个，但仅在援助方面。这是由ChatGPT自己验证的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Human- and AI-based authorship: Principles and ethics

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.
Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human-based authorship model.
Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.
We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.
We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.

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

Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

17.90%

发文量