Hot news

The world's largest academic publisher: ChatGPT AI cannot be certified as an author


Springer Nature, the world's largest academic publisher, has clarified its policies on the use of AI writing tools in scientific papers, and the company announced this week that software like ChatGPT cannot be author-certified on papers published in thousands of journals.


However, Springer says there is no problem with scientists using AI to help write or generate ideas for research, as long as such contribution is properly disclosed by the authors, according to theverge report. 

"We felt it necessary to make our position clear: to our authors, to our editors, and to ourselves," Magdalena Skipper, editor-in-chief of Springer Nature's flagship journal Nature, tells The Verge. "This new generation of LLM tools - including ChatGPT - has really exploded in the community, and they're really excited about playing with them, but also using them in ways that are beyond how they can really be used nowadays."

ChatGPT and earlier large language models (LLMs) have already been named as authors in a small number of published papers, prior publications and scholarly articles, however, the nature and degree of contribution of these tools varies from case to case.

And in an opinion piece published in the journal Oncoscience, ChatGPT is used to advocate taking a particular drug in the context of Pascal's wager, with the AI-generated text clearly marked but in a preprint paper examining a bot's ability to pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), The only acknowledgment of the bot's contribution is a sentence stating that the bot "contributed to writing several sections of this manuscript." 

And in a recent prepress paper, no further details are given about how and where to use ChatGPT to generate text. (The Verge contacted the authors but did not receive a response in time for publication.) 

However, the CEO of the company that funded the research, healthcare startup Ansible Health, has argued that the bot has made significant contributions. The content of the research paper and not only as a subject for its evaluation. 

Reaction in the scientific community to the papers crediting ChatGPT as the author has been mostly negative, with social media users calling the decision in the USMLE case "ridiculous", "ridiculous" and "extremely stupid". 

The arguments against granting copyright to AI is that software simply cannot fulfill the duties required, as Skipper and Nature Springer show. "When we think of authoring scientific papers, or research papers, we don't just think of writing them," says Skipper. "There are responsibilities that extend beyond publication, and certainly at the moment these AI tools can't handle those responsibilities." 

The programs cannot be meaningfully responsible for any publication, they cannot claim intellectual property rights to their work, and they cannot align themselves with other scientists and the press to explain and answer questions about their work.