Knowledge, Perceptions and Attitude of Researchers Towards Using ChatGPT in Research.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Systems Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4
Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz, Asmaa Ali, Ayman Mohamed Maaly, Hany Hassan Ziady, Eman Anwar Sultan, Mohamed Anwar Mahgoub
{"title":"Knowledge, Perceptions and Attitude of Researchers Towards Using ChatGPT in Research.","authors":"Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz, Asmaa Ali, Ayman Mohamed Maaly, Hany Hassan Ziady, Eman Anwar Sultan, Mohamed Anwar Mahgoub","doi":"10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>ChatGPT, a recently released chatbot from OpenAI, has found applications in various aspects of life, including academic research. This study investigated the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of researchers towards using ChatGPT and other chatbots in academic research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pre-designed, self-administered survey using Google Forms was employed to conduct the study. The questionnaire assessed participants' knowledge of ChatGPT and other chatbots, their awareness of current chatbot and artificial intelligence (AI) applications, and their attitudes towards ChatGPT and its potential research uses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred researchers participated in the survey. A majority were female (57.5%), and over two-thirds belonged to the medical field (68%). While 67% had heard of ChatGPT, only 11.5% had employed it in their research, primarily for rephrasing paragraphs and finding references. Interestingly, over one-third supported the notion of listing ChatGPT as an author in scientific publications. Concerns emerged regarding AI's potential to automate researcher tasks, particularly in language editing, statistics, and data analysis. Additionally, roughly half expressed ethical concerns about using AI applications in scientific research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The increasing use of chatbots in academic research necessitates thoughtful regulation that balances potential benefits with inherent limitations and potential risks. Chatbots should not be considered authors of scientific publications but rather assistants to researchers during manuscript preparation and review. Researchers should be equipped with proper training to utilize chatbots and other AI tools effectively and ethically.</p>","PeriodicalId":16338,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Systems","volume":"48 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10899415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: ChatGPT, a recently released chatbot from OpenAI, has found applications in various aspects of life, including academic research. This study investigated the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of researchers towards using ChatGPT and other chatbots in academic research.

Methods: A pre-designed, self-administered survey using Google Forms was employed to conduct the study. The questionnaire assessed participants' knowledge of ChatGPT and other chatbots, their awareness of current chatbot and artificial intelligence (AI) applications, and their attitudes towards ChatGPT and its potential research uses.

Results: Two hundred researchers participated in the survey. A majority were female (57.5%), and over two-thirds belonged to the medical field (68%). While 67% had heard of ChatGPT, only 11.5% had employed it in their research, primarily for rephrasing paragraphs and finding references. Interestingly, over one-third supported the notion of listing ChatGPT as an author in scientific publications. Concerns emerged regarding AI's potential to automate researcher tasks, particularly in language editing, statistics, and data analysis. Additionally, roughly half expressed ethical concerns about using AI applications in scientific research.

Conclusion: The increasing use of chatbots in academic research necessitates thoughtful regulation that balances potential benefits with inherent limitations and potential risks. Chatbots should not be considered authors of scientific publications but rather assistants to researchers during manuscript preparation and review. Researchers should be equipped with proper training to utilize chatbots and other AI tools effectively and ethically.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究人员对在研究中使用 ChatGPT 的了解、看法和态度。
简介ChatGPT 是 OpenAI 最近发布的一款聊天机器人,它已被应用于生活的各个方面,包括学术研究。本研究调查了研究人员对在学术研究中使用 ChatGPT 和其他聊天机器人的了解、看法和态度:研究采用了预先设计的、使用谷歌表单的自填式调查问卷。问卷评估了参与者对 ChatGPT 和其他聊天机器人的了解程度、他们对当前聊天机器人和人工智能(AI)应用的认识,以及他们对 ChatGPT 及其潜在研究用途的态度:200 名研究人员参与了调查。大多数研究人员为女性(57.5%),超过三分之二属于医学领域(68%)。虽然 67% 的人听说过 ChatGPT,但只有 11.5% 的人在研究中使用过它,主要用于改写段落和查找参考文献。有趣的是,超过三分之一的人支持在科学出版物中将 ChatGPT 列为作者。人们对人工智能自动化研究人员任务的潜力表示担忧,尤其是在语言编辑、统计和数据分析方面。此外,大约一半的人对在科学研究中使用人工智能应用表示了道德方面的担忧:聊天机器人在学术研究中的使用越来越多,有必要制定周密的规章制度,在潜在利益与固有限制和潜在风险之间取得平衡。聊天机器人不应被视为科学出版物的作者,而应是研究人员在稿件准备和审阅过程中的助手。研究人员应接受适当的培训,以便有效、合乎道德地使用聊天机器人和其他人工智能工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Systems
Journal of Medical Systems 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
83
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Systems provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of the increasingly extensive applications of new systems techniques and methods in hospital clinic and physician''s office administration; pathology radiology and pharmaceutical delivery systems; medical records storage and retrieval; and ancillary patient-support systems. The journal publishes informative articles essays and studies across the entire scale of medical systems from large hospital programs to novel small-scale medical services. Education is an integral part of this amalgamation of sciences and selected articles are published in this area. Since existing medical systems are constantly being modified to fit particular circumstances and to solve specific problems the journal includes a special section devoted to status reports on current installations.
期刊最新文献
Garbage In, Garbage Out? Negative Impact of Physiological Waveform Artifacts in a Hospital Clinical Data Warehouse. 21st Century Cures Act and Information Blocking: How Have Different Specialties Responded? Self-Supervised Learning for Near-Wild Cognitive Workload Estimation. Electronic Health Records Sharing Based on Consortium Blockchain. Large Language Models in Healthcare: An Urgent Call for Ongoing, Rigorous Validation.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1