Confronting the demonization of AI writing: Reevaluating its role in upholding scientific integrity

Luca Fiorillo
{"title":"Confronting the demonization of AI writing: Reevaluating its role in upholding scientific integrity","authors":"Luca Fiorillo","doi":"10.1016/j.oor.2024.100685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The advent of AI-assisted writing tools, such as ChatGPT, has generated significant debate within scientific communities, primarily regarding their influence on the rigor and integrity of academic writing. While critics argue that reliance on these tools could dilute analytical depth or introduce biases, a balanced perspective suggests that AI-driven writing can enhance clarity, structure complex arguments, and improve the efficiency of scientific communication. This manuscript addresses the controversies surrounding AI writing by analyzing historical precedents of methodological errors in published research, highlighting the need for error-minimizing tools during manuscript preparation. Case studies of notable retractions and methodological critiques reveal that inaccuracies in scientific literature are not unique to the era of AI. These issues underscore the need for stringent ethical practices and critical evaluation, regardless of technological advancements. AI writing tools, when employed responsibly, serve as valuable assets to researchers by supporting precision and transparency in scholarly communication. Thus, embracing AI tools, rather than demonizing them, may contribute positively to the goals of reproducibility and trustworthiness in academic publications. Ethical guidelines and a commitment to integrity remain paramount as these tools evolve.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94378,"journal":{"name":"Oral Oncology Reports","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100685"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Oncology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772906024005314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The advent of AI-assisted writing tools, such as ChatGPT, has generated significant debate within scientific communities, primarily regarding their influence on the rigor and integrity of academic writing. While critics argue that reliance on these tools could dilute analytical depth or introduce biases, a balanced perspective suggests that AI-driven writing can enhance clarity, structure complex arguments, and improve the efficiency of scientific communication. This manuscript addresses the controversies surrounding AI writing by analyzing historical precedents of methodological errors in published research, highlighting the need for error-minimizing tools during manuscript preparation. Case studies of notable retractions and methodological critiques reveal that inaccuracies in scientific literature are not unique to the era of AI. These issues underscore the need for stringent ethical practices and critical evaluation, regardless of technological advancements. AI writing tools, when employed responsibly, serve as valuable assets to researchers by supporting precision and transparency in scholarly communication. Thus, embracing AI tools, rather than demonizing them, may contribute positively to the goals of reproducibility and trustworthiness in academic publications. Ethical guidelines and a commitment to integrity remain paramount as these tools evolve.
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
面对人工智能写作的妖魔化:重新评估其在维护科学诚信方面的作用
人工智能辅助写作工具的出现,如ChatGPT,在科学界引起了重大争论,主要是关于它们对学术写作的严谨性和完整性的影响。尽管批评人士认为,依赖这些工具可能会稀释分析深度或引入偏见,但一个平衡的观点表明,人工智能驱动的写作可以提高清晰度,构建复杂的论点,并提高科学交流的效率。本文通过分析已发表研究中方法论错误的历史先例,解决了围绕人工智能写作的争议,强调了在手稿准备过程中需要尽量减少错误的工具。对著名撤稿和方法论批评的案例研究表明,科学文献中的不准确性并非人工智能时代所独有。这些问题强调了严格的道德实践和批判性评估的必要性,无论技术进步如何。当负责任地使用人工智能写作工具时,通过支持学术交流的准确性和透明度,它可以成为研究人员的宝贵资产。因此,拥抱人工智能工具,而不是妖魔化它们,可能会对学术出版物的可重复性和可信赖性目标做出积极贡献。随着这些工具的发展,道德准则和对诚信的承诺仍然是最重要的。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preliminary analysis of incidence, risk factors, and management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer patients Confronting the demonization of AI writing: Reevaluating its role in upholding scientific integrity Letter to the Editor: Comment on “Advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma arising in verrucous carcinoma with nodal and pulmonary metastasis: Exemplifying patient negligence and impact of alternative medicine” A fight against cancer with advancement of Schiff base metal complexes: Future prospects PD-L1 mediated immune escape in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Impact of LMP1 and IFN-γ on immune surveillance
×
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