Transparency Guidance for ChatGPT Usage in Scientific Writing

Abstract

The use of text-generating Large Language Models (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in scholarly writing presents challenges to transparency and credibility. Journals and institutes are in need to revise their policies on whether the usage of such tools is acceptable throughout the research workflow and to provide guidance on how to safeguard transparency and credibility when LLMs are allowed to assist researchers. The present practical guideline should help those scholars who use LLMs and journals and institutes that allow using them. We also provide an example text to show a transparent usage of ChatGPT.

ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns

“…First, superficial, inaccurate, or incorrect content was frequently cited as a shortcoming of ChatGPT use in scientific writing [ 14 , 28 , 29 , 40 , 60 ]. The ethical issues including the risk of bias based on training datasets and plagiarism were also frequently mentioned, aside from the lack of transparency regarding content generation, which justifies the description of ChatGPT, on occasions, as a black box technology [ 14 , 25 , 26 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 55 , 60 , 63 , 65 , 72 ]. Importantly, the concept of ChatGPT hallucination could be risky if the generated content is not thoroughly evaluated by researchers and health providers with proper expertise [ 37 , 56 , 73 , 77 , 79 ].…”

“…Third, the generation of non-original, over-detailed, or excessive content can be an additional burden for researchers who should carefully supervise the ChatGPT-generated content [ 14 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 65 , 71 ]. This can be addressed by supplying ChatGPT with proper prompts (text input), since varying responses might be generated based on the exact approach of prompt construction [ 72 , 82 ].…”

The Utility of ChatGPT as an Example of Large Language Models in Healthcare Education, Research and Practice: Systematic Review on the Future Perspectives and Potential Limitations

“…On the other hand, the use of ChatGPT in academic writing and scientific research should be done in light of the following current limitations that could compromise the quality of research: First, superficial, inaccurate or incorrect content was frequently cited as a shortcoming of ChatGPT use [14,47,49,77,79]. The ethical issues including the risk of bias based on training datasets, and plagiarism were frequently mentioned, besides the lack of transparency described on occasions as a black box technology [14,27,[29][30][31][32][33]35,36,39,57,58,77,79]. Importantly, the concept of ChatGPT hallucination was mentioned which can be risky if not evaluated properly by researchers and health providers with proper expertise [59,60,65,73,74].…”

The Utility of ChatGPT as an Example of Large Language Models in Healthcare Education, Research and Practice: Systematic Review on the Future Perspectives and Potential Limitations

“…On the other hand, the use of ChatGPT in academic writing and scientific research should be done in light of the following current limitations that could compromise the quality of research: First, superficial, inaccurate or incorrect content was frequently cited as a shortcoming of ChatGPT use [14,47,49,77,79]. The ethical issues including the risk of bias based on training datasets, and plagiarism were frequently mentioned, besides the lack of transparency described on occasions as a black box technology [14,27,[29][30][31][32][33]35,36,39,57,58,77,79]. Importantly, the concept of ChatGPT hallucination was mentioned which can be risky if not evaluated properly by researchers and health providers with proper expertise [59,60,65,73,74].…”

“…The disapproval of including ChatGPT or any other LLM in the list of authors was clearly explained in Science, Nature, and the Lancet editorials referring to its use as a scientific misconduct, and this view was echoed by many scientists [28,30,38,70,77]. In case of ChatGPT use in the research process, several records advocated the need for proper and concise disclosure and documentation of ChatGPT or LLM use in the methodology or acknowledgement sections [35,39,70]. A noteworthy and comprehensive record by Borji can be used as a categorical guide for the issues and concerns of ChatGPT use especially in scientific writing [24].…”