From advancements to ethics: Assessing ChatGPT’s role in writing research paper

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI), with its infinite capabilities, has ushered in an era of transformation in the twenty-first century. ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), an AI language model, has lately been in the spotlight, and there is an increasing partnership between the research authors and the chatGPT. Using ChatGPT, authors can set new benchmarks in paper writing in terms of speed, accuracy, consistency, and adaptability. ChatGPT has turned out to be an invaluable tool for manuscript writing, editing, and reference management. While it has numerous advantages, it has been criticised due to ethical quandaries, inaccuracies in scientific data and facts, and, most importantly, a lack of critical thinking skills. These disadvantages of using ChatGPT place limitations on its use in medical publications since these articles guide the future management of many diseases. While AI can fix issues, it lacks the ability to think like humans and thus cannot substitute human authors. To better comprehend the future of this technology in research, we discuss the advantages, drawbacks, and ethical dilemmas of using ChatGPT in paper writing by reviewing existing literature on Pubmed and Google Scholar and using ChatGPT itself to understand the prompt response.

Keywords

• chatGPT
• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical paper writing
• Research
• chatbot

References

1. Macdonald C, Adeloye D, Sheikh A, Rudan I. Can ChatGPT draft a research article? An example of population-level vaccine effectiveness analysis. J Glob Health. 2023 Feb 17;13:01003. doi: 10.7189/jogh.13.01003.
2. Korteling JEH, van de Boer-Visschedijk GC, Blankendaal RAM, Boonekamp RC, Eikelboom AR. Human- versus Artificial Intelligence. Front Artif Intell. 2021 Mar 25;4:622364. doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.622364.
3. Choi RY, Coyner AS, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Chiang MF, Campbell JP. Introduction to machine learning, neural networks, and deep learning. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020 Feb 27;9(2):14. doi: 10.1167/tvst.9.2.14.
4. Radford A, Narasimhan K, Salimans T, Sutskever I. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 2018. San Francisco, California: OpenAI blog.
5. Radford A, Wu J, Child R, David L, Dario A. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. 2018. San Francisco, California: OpenAI blog.
6. Brown TB 2020 - Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan JD, Dhariwal P, Neelakantan A, Shyam P, Sastry G, Askell A, Agarwal S, Herbert-Voss A, Krueger G, Henighan T, Child R, Ramesh A, Ziegler D, Wu J, Winter C, Hesse C, Chen M, Sigler E, Litwin M, Gray S, Chess B, Clark J, Berner J, McCandlish S, Radford A, Sutskever I, Amodei D. Language models are few-shot learners. In: Larochelle H, Ranzato M, Hadsell R, Balcan MF, Lin H, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020). 2020 Jul 22:1877-901. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165.
7. Quintans-Júnior LJ, Gurgel RQ, Araújo AAS, Correia D, Martins-Filho PR. ChatGPT: the new panacea of the academic world. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2023 Mar 6;56:e0060. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0060-2023.
8. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023 Feb 19;15(2):e35179. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35179.

9. Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Correction to: Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023 Mar 8;27(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04390-0.
10. Marchandot B, Matsushita K, Carmona A, Trimaille A, Morel O. ChatGPT: the next frontier in academic writing for cardiologists or a pandora’s box of ethical dilemmas. Eur Heart J Open. 2023 Feb 13;3(2):oead007. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oead007.
11. Kim SG. Using ChatGPT for language editing in scientific articles. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Mar 8;45(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s40902-023-00381-x.
12. Eysenbach G. The role of ChatGPT, generative language models, and artificial intelligence in medical education: A conversation with ChatGPT and a call for papers. JMIR Med Educ. 2023 Mar 6;9:e46885. doi: 10.2196/46885.
13. King MR. ChatGPT. A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cell Mol Bioeng. 2023 Jan 2;16(1):1-2. doi: 10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8.
14. Ufuk F. The role and limitations of large language models such as ChatGPT in clinical settings and medical journalism. Radiology. 2023 Mar 7:230276. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230276.
15. Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature. 2023 Jan;613(7944):423. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7.
16. Chatterjee J, Dethlefs N. This new conversational AI model can be your friend, philosopher, and guide ... and even your worst enemy. Patterns (N Y). 2023 Jan 13;4(1):100676. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100676.
17. Hosseini M, Horbach SPJM. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2023 Feb 20:rs.3.rs-2587766. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2587766/v1.
18. Kitamura FC. ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology. 2023 Feb 2:230171. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230171.
19. Defining the role of authors and contributors. ICMJE. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed March 20, 2023.
20. Elsevier. Copyright. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/copyright. Accessed March 20, 2023.
21. Homolak J. Opportunities and risks of ChatGPT in medicine, science, and academic publishing: a modern Promethean dilemma. Croat Med J. 2023 Feb 28;64(1):1-3. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2023.64.1.
22. Lee JY. Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article? J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:6. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.6.
23. Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Buadze A, Bhugra D, Smith A. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. Lancet Digit Health. 2023 Mar;5(3):e105-e106. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00019-5.
24. Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 2023 Jan 27;379(6630):313. doi: 10.1126/science.adg7879.
25. Manohar N, Prasad SS. Use of ChatGPT in Academic Publishing: A rare case of seronegative systemic lupus erythematosus in a patient with HIV infection. Cureus. 2023 Feb 4;15(2):e34616. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34616.
26. The Lancet Digital Health. ChatGPT: friend or foe? Lancet Digit Health. 2023 Mar;5(3):e102. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00023-7.
27. Brainard J. Journals take up arms against AI-written text. Science. 2023 Feb 24;379(6634):740-1. doi: 10.1126/science.adh2762.
28. Mondal H, Mondal S. ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Dec 1;71(12):3600-6. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_718_23.
29. Gordijn B, Have HT. ChatGPT: evolution or revolution? Med Health Care Philos. 2023 Mar;26(1):1-2. doi: 10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0.
30. Ollivier M, Pareek A, Dahmen J, Kayaalp ME, Winkler PW, Hirschmann MT, Karlsson J. A deeper dive into ChatGPT: history, use and future perspectives for orthopaedic research. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023 Apr;31(4):1190-2. doi: 10.1007/s00167-023-07372-5.
31. Anderson N, Belavy DL, Perle SM, Hendricks S, Hespanhol L, Verhagen E, Memon AR. AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generated texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in Sports & Exercise Medicine manuscript generation. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2023 Feb 16;9(1):e001568. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001568.