Artificial Intelligence in scientific publications?

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is here to stay. The discussion about whether it should be considered a scientific area (e.g., Simon has long become superfluous, and several segments of society have doubts about how to deal with the consequences of the increasing and, for the most part, undetectable of AI tools. Artwork, pictures, concerts, speeches, and even movies where real artists are digitally rejuvenated and can act side by side with images of performers who have been deceased for decades, at the same time cause enchantment and concern. One cannot avoid wondering if a time will come when we may lose the ability to distinguish reality from fiction. The spread of more elaborated and verisimilar fake news is just one of the negative consequences that can be propagated and promoted with these new technologies.The most recent advent of AI is the language model software ChatGPT, which is becoming increasingly popular (e.g., Sample 2023). By being able to produce human-like responses to a variety of subjects and situations, this AI tool has raised possibilities, but also concerns. An undeniable advantage is to expedite written routine work with minimal human intervention, which speeds up the flow of information and increases productivity (e.g., Haleem et al. 2022). On the other hand, the editorial and journalistic markets are thinking about global initiatives on how to protect themselves against potential damages related to intellectual property. In education, teachers are concerned about the likely possibility that essays written by their students are not the result of extensive research, but conceived in minutes as the outcome of a couple of loose sentences and ideas that were entered with a few clicks on the computer, using language model software.Nowadays, there have been a variety of issues regarding science that are starting to be discussed, such as efforts to address gender gap (e.g., Staniscuaski et al. 2021) and the correct (and fair) evaluation of bibliometric indexes (e.g., Kowaltowski et al. 2021). But AI is also beginning to enter the radar of the scientific community (e.g., Hutson 2022) with the potential to overshadow these other discussions. Manohar & Prasad (2023), for example, when presenting a rare case of a chronic autoimmune disorder, reported their experience with using ChatGPT when writing their article, pointing out that, despite the general help including bibliographic references, their attempt was hampered by the lack of scientifically sound information. Others have considered ChatGPT even as coauthors (O´Connor & ChatGPT 2023), which generated many criticism (e.g., Hill-Yardin et al. 2023). One way or another, the use of such AI language programs is increasingly getting widespread, not without raising eyebrows regarding ethical issues (e.g., Rossoni 2022).