Pediatric Radiology (2023) 53:816–817
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05668-9
EDITORIAL
ChatGPT: an editor’s perspective
Amaka C. Offiah1,2 · Geetika Khanna3
Published online: 19 April 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023
There is a first time for everything, and the day finally came
(March 7, 2023) when, as an editor, A.C.O. found herself
requesting confirmation that an artificial intelligence (AI)
was not the author of a manuscript submitted for potential
publication in our journal. Her exact words were, “Provide
a disclaimer at the end of the manuscript confirming that
you and not ChatGPT wrote the article,” the corresponding
author was Saliba T. and the article in question, “ChatGPT:
A radiologist’s perspective” [1].
In a thought-provoking Letter to the Editor, the authors
summarise the current strengths and weaknesses of the
software tool, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained
Transformer).
The editors had of course heard about and even read
some articles on ChatGPT (superlative articles bordering
on sensationalistic from the media, more considered in the
scientific literature). However, it was not until receiving the
paper by Saliba and Boitsios [1] that the Editors could not
resist the temptation and tried ChatGPT themselves. One
example is included below:
Question (Prof. A.C. Offiah):
In 250 words, critically review a 2023 journal article
in Pediatric Radiology in which the authors, Saliba
T. and Boitsios G. provide a radiologist’s perspective
on ChatGPT. They conclude with the words of Curtis
Langlotz that “AI won’t replace radiologists, but radi-
ologists who use AI will replace those who don’t”.
* Amaka C. Offiah
a.offiah@sheffield.ac.uk
1
Department of Oncology and Metabolism,
University of Sheffield, Sheffield Children’s NHS
Foundation Trust, Western Bank, Room 3, Damer Street
Building, Sheffield S10 2TH, UK
2
Department of Radiology, Sheffield Children’s NHS
Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
3
Department of Radiology & Imaging Sciences, Emory
University and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta,
GA, USA
13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Answer (ChatGPT):
The article by Saliba T. and Boitsios G. titled “A Radi-
ologist’s Perspective on ChatGPT” provides an inter-
esting insight into the use of artificial intelligence (AI)
in the field of radiology. The authors have presented a
comprehensive overview of the current state of AI in
radiology and the potential benefits and challenges on
integrating AI into clinical practice.
The authors highlight the potential of ChatGPT, a large
language model trained by OpenAI, in assisting radi-
ologists with report generation, differential diagnosis,
and image interpretation. They also acknowledge the
challenges associated with AI, including concerns
regarding accuracy, reliability, and ethical issues.
The authors rightly suggest that AI should not replace
radiologists, but rather complement their skills and
expertise.
The authors have effectively presented the views of
various experts in the field and have cited relevant
studies to support their arguments. However, the article
lacks a critical analysis of the limitations of ChatGPT
and its potential impact on the role of radiologists. For
instance, the authors do not discuss the potential nega-
tive consequences of over-reliance on AI and the pos-
sibility of radiologists losing their interpretive skills.
Furthermore, while the authors provide some insight
into the ethical issues surrounding the use of AI in
radiology, they do not delve deeper into the potential
impact of AI on patient care, patient privacy, and data
security. Given the growing concerns regarding the
ethical implications of AI in healthcare, this is a sig-
nificant limitation of the article.
In conclusion, the article by Saliba T. and Boitsios G.
provides a useful overview of the potential benefits
and challenges of using AI in radiology. However, the
article lacks a critical analysis of the limitations and
potential negative consequences of AI, and the poten-
tial ethical implications of its use in clinical practice.
The authors’ conclusion that radiologists who use AI
Pediatric Radiology (2023) 53:816–817
will replace those who don’t, while a catchy quote,
seems somewhat oversimplistic and lacking in nuance.
The above review by ChatGPT is not at all bad, consider-
ing that the response was derived in seconds, without having
had sight of the original article. This capability is why many
are worried that the introduction of ChatGPT heralds a rapid
and significant change in education, science and research as
we know it.
From an editor’s perspective, there is concern that manu-
scripts may not have been authored by humans and indeed
one study (in preprint) records that 32% of ChatGPT-gener-
ated abstracts (based on completely generated data) misled
scientists, who believed them to be original [2]. Important
words of caution related to ethics, legal issues, innovation,
accuracy, bias and transparency of ChatGPT are raised
by Biswas, S., sections of whose article he has declared
were written by ChatGPT and then edited by himself [3].
This last is the key—it is very difficult to police the use of
ChatGPT—therefore, the question is whether authors (and
reviewers [4]) should disclose that they have used ChatGPT
and take full responsibility for any errors arising thereof.
The editors of the Science group of publications think not
and have updated their editorial policies to specify that no
aspects of any manuscript submitted to them (text, figures,
images, graphics) can be generated by ChatGPT (unless
ChatGPT is intentionally used as part of the research). A
violation of their policy will be deemed to be scientific mis-
conduct [5].
Springer Nature (the publishers of our journal, Pedi-
atric Radiology) has taken a different view. The recently
announced AI-related policy of Springer Nature can be sum-
marized as follows: (1) AI writing tools can be used to write
manuscripts and to conceptualize research ideas, (2) this
contribution must be openly declared and (3) AI tools cannot
be listed as authors [6]. An attribution of authorship carries
with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effec-
tively applied to large language models. As the Managing
Editors of Pediatric Radiology, we will update our Author
Guidelines, henceforth mandating that authors declare the
role played by AI tools, not as a disclaimer, but within the
Materials and Methods section of their manuscripts. If a
817
Materials and Methods section is not relevant to your manu-
script, the Introduction section can be used to document the
use of any AI tools.
These large language models can be a useful aid in scien-
tific writing and editing, especially for non-native English
speakers, and can even aid the author in adding accurately
formatted references. However, authors should limit the use
of these tools to topics that they are subject matter experts
on to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up
to date. No matter what AI tool is used, the authors remain
responsible for the scientific integrity of their publications.
Author contributions A.C.O. wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
A.C.O. and G.K. revised the draft and approved the final version of
the manuscript.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest A.C.O. and G.K. are Managing Editors of Pedi-
atric Radiology (for outside the Americas and the Americas, respec-
tively).
References
1. Saliba T, Boitsios G (2023) ChatGPT: a radiologist’s perspective.
Pediatr Radiol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00247-​023-​05656-z
2. Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo
Y, Pearson AT (2022) Comparing scientific abstracts generated
by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence
output detector, plagiarism detector and blinded human reviewers.
bioRxiv. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1101/​2022.​12.​23.​521610
3. Biswas S (2023) ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Radi-
ology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1148/​radiol.​223312
4. Hosseini M, Horbach SPJM (2023) Fighting reviewer fatigue or
amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use
of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer
review. Res Sq. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21203/​rs.3.​rs-​25877​66/​v1
5. Thorp HH (2023) ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science
379:313. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​adg78​79
6. Editorial (2023) Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent sci-
ence; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature 613:612.
https://​www.​nature.​com/​artic​les/​d41586-​023-​00191-1
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13