{"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}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
