VPR Statement on Use of AI in Research – @theU

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology that is changing the landscape of higher education in terms of teaching and research. Policies and guidelines regarding the use of AI in research activities, particularly in the writing and review of manuscripts, articles, and grant applications, are evolving across federal agencies, journals, and academic institutions. It is up to researchers, project staff, and students to be aware of applicable policies and guidelines regarding the use of AI programs and tools, and to question the extent to which they can be relied upon for use in research environments ( NIH, 2023).

Can AI be listed as an author?

No, the consensus among journals and the research community is that AI models “cannot take responsibility for submitted work and therefore cannot meet the authorship requirements.” As an unincorporated body, we cannot claim conflicts of interest or manage copyrights or license agreements.” (Publishing Ethics Committee) [COPE], 2023, Zielinski et al., 2023. Flanagin et al., 2023).

The concept of “responsibility” is not just ownership, it is also accountability. A generative AI cannot be an author “because authorship entails accountability for the work, and AI tools cannot assume such responsibility” (Nature, 2023; Hosseini, Rasmussen & Resnik, 2023). Accountability is an important factor as an author as it communicates responsibility and responsibility for your work.

Can AI be used to write and develop manuscripts?

Certain journals and research areas have different requirements regarding the use of AI in the writing process. In general, “authors who use AI tools to write manuscripts, create images or graphic elements for articles, or collect and analyze data must be transparent in their disclosures in Materials and Methods (or similar sections).” A paper description of how and which AI tools were used” (COPE, 2023; Zielinski et al., 2023; Flanagin et al., 2023). The author is responsible for ensuring that the output generated by the AI ​​is appropriate and accurate. “AI can produce authoritative-sounding output that may be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased, so authors should carefully review and edit their results.” International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) [ICMJE], 2023. Hosseini, Rasmussen, Resnik, 2023).

According to ICMJE standards, authors must take steps to avoid plagiarism of AI-generated text and images (2023). All cited material should be properly cited and attributed (ICMJE, 2023). In general, AI models should not be cited as authors of the cited text. For example, when using the AI ​​model ChatGPT, the cited author must be listed as the author of the model OpenAI. Information on how to cite AI when using the American Psychological Association (APA) style can be found here. here.

When considering the use of generative AI in scientific papers, users should accept responsibility and accountability for the content produced by such tools. As indicated above, generative AI tools have no liability or responsibility. Generative AI has been found to plagiarize and forge material, and authors who rely on AI-generated material without verifying the accuracy of the information may not plagiarize, falsify, or or if it contains plagiarism, you expose yourself to the discovery of academic and research misconduct. The accuracy and integrity of scientific research remains the responsibility and responsibility of researchers.

Can AI be used to create grant applications?

Many of the concerns that exist when using AI for manuscript writing/development (see above) also apply to writing grant applications. A grant application is expected to represent the original and accurate ideas of the applicant institution and the researcher. However, AI tools can be contaminated with plagiarized, altered, or fabricated content, so grant applicants should be careful with AI-generated content, and funding agencies should avoid plagiarized, altered, or fabricated content. It is warned that the applicant will be held responsible for the content that has been identified. , research misconduct) (Lauer, Constant, & Wernimont, 2023).

Can AI be used in the peer review process?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that “scientific reviewers use natural language processors, large-scale language models, or other generative artificial (AI) technology” prohibited (NIH), 2023). Using AI in the peer review process would be a breach of confidentiality, as these tools “make no guarantees as to where data may be transmitted, stored, displayed, or used in the future.” , 2023). Using an AI tool to help draft criticism or help improve the grammar or syntax of a draft criticism is both considered a breach of confidentiality.

How should I report the use of AI in my research?

Standards of rigor and reproducibility are often established by specific journals and disciplines. Transparent and complete reporting of the methodology and materials used is essential to promote reproducibility and reproducibility. The Association of the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence has a helpful reproducibility checklist. here.

Publication Ethics Committee [COPE]. (February 13, 2023). Authors and AI Tools – COPE: Publishing Ethics Committee. Retrieved 14 June 2023 from here.

Flanagin, A., et al. (February 28, 2023). Non-human “authors” and their impact on the integrity of scientific publications and medical knowledge. JAMA 329(8)637-639.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ICMJE]. (May 2023). Recommendations for Conducting, Reporting, Editing, and Publishing Scholarly Research in Medical Journals. ICMJE – Recommendation. Retrieved 14 June 2023 from here.

Lauer, M., Constant, S., and Warnimont, A. (2023, June 23). Using AI in peer review is a breach of confidentiality. Retrieved from here on 07/12/2023.

National Institutes of Health [NIH]. (June 23, 2023). NOT-OD-23-149: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Techniques Banned in NIH Peer Review Process. Retrieved 25 June 2023 from here.

Nature (January 24, 2023). Tools like ChatGPT threaten transparent science.Here are the ground rules for using. Retrieved 10 July 2023 from here.

Zielinski, C. et al. (31 May 2023) Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Academic Papers: His WAME Recommendations for Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence Related to Academic Publications. Retrieved 10 July 2023 from here.