AI evidence extraction

Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria

Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang · Accountability in Research · 2023

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

9/10

Relevance

1/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

Citations

2.25

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2177160

Methodology & findings

Study design

Argumentative analysis and policy commentary; letter to the editor presenting a technical point regarding editorial policy on AI disclosure and authorship.

Main result

The letter argues that "NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria" such as the ICMJE guidelines, and that such systems should be forbidden from authorship in addition to requiring mandatory disclosure of their use in scholarly publications.

Research paradigm

Critical/interpretive - philosophical argumentation regarding research ethics and authorship standards

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "Such AI systems should naturally also be forbidden from being named as authors, because they would not have fulfilled prevailing authorship guidelines (such as the widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria)." They recommend adding a technical point to editorial policy regarding mandatory disclosure of NLP/generative AI use.

Open questions raised

The letter does not identify future research gaps but rather addresses an editorial policy gap regarding the treatment of AI systems in authorship attribution.

Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 80%

Explore related topics

Authorship & Attribution Research Integrity Position Paper