SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
2023, VOL. 41, NO. 3, 187–188
https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2023.2240114
EDITORIAL
Scientific papers and artificial intelligence. Brave new world?
Developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT is a publicly accessible
tool that uses GPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer)
technology. As a sophisticated chatbot, it can fulfill a
wide range of text-based requests, including answering
simple questions and completing more advanced tasks
such as generating thank you letters and addressing
productivity issues. It is even capable of writing entire
scholarly essays by breaking a main topic into subtopics
and having ChatGPT write each section, it is possible to
create an entire article using the tool. It is even possible
to write an entire paper in a matter of seconds with min-
imal input from a researcher [1]. If this has been done
already and a ChatGPT- generated paper has been pub-
lished in medical science is hard to know for sure. To my
knowledge it has, however, not to date been docu-
mented to be the case.
There are a wide variety of papers in the field of med-
ical science that potentially could be written or partially
generated using artificial intelligence (AI). Some examples
of the types of papers that might be produced using AI
include:
1. Papers that analyze large amounts of data, such as
clinical trial data or electronic medical records. AI
algorithms can be used to quickly identify patterns
and trends in such data sets.
2. Papers that summarize the results of multiple studies
or meta-analyses. AI algorithms could potentially be
used to identify and extract key findings from such
studies and to synthesize them into a coherent
review.
3. Papers that use machine learning techniques to
develop predictive models or to identify risk factors.
4. Papers that use natural language processing techni-
ques to analyze text-based data, e.g., qualitative
research.
5. Probably, papers on any other subjects. Limits may
be expected to be beyond human imagination.
Overall, the use of AI in medical research is likely to
be most useful for tasks that involve the analysis of large
amounts of data or the identification of patterns that
might be difficult for humans to discern.
However, it is important to note that the use of AI in
scientific research is still relatively new, and most papers
published in medical journals are likely to be written by
humans in the near as well as the more distant future. It
is also worth noting that the use of AI in scientific
research is generally seen as a tool to assist human
researchers, rather than as a replacement for them.
There is some cause for concern about the potential
for AI to be used to generate or manipulate scientific
papers in the field of medical science, as in any other
field. For example, there is a risk that AI-generated
papers could contain errors or oversights that could lead
to incorrect or misleading conclusions, or that they could
be used to spread misinformation. In addition, there is a
potential for AI-generated papers to be used to promote
biased or misleading conclusions, or to advance the inter-
ests of particular groups or individuals.
It is also important to recognize that there are many
potential benefits to using AI in medical research. For
example, AI can be used to quickly analyze large
amounts of data or to identify patterns that might not
be easily recognizable to researchers, which could lead to
new insights and discoveries.
Overall, members of the scientific society must be
aware of the potential concerns and be ready to take
steps to ensure the integrity and reliability of scientific
research in medical science, regardless of whether it is
produced solely by humans or with the help of AI. This
could include using multiple sources to verify the accur-
acy of findings and being transparent about the methods
and sources used in research.
It can be challenging for editors of scientific journals
to detect papers that have been written or partially gen-
erated by AI, as the quality of AI-generated papers can
vary widely. Some AI-generated papers may be of high
quality and may be difficult to distinguish from those
written by humans, while others may contain errors or
oversights that are more easily identifiable.
There are a few approaches that editors and reviewers
can use to try to identify AI-generated papers. For
example, they may look for patterns in the language or
style of the paper that are indicative of AI generation, or
they may check the paper for inconsistencies or errors
that are less common in human-written papers. Also,
text generated by AI may be detected by software that
uses AI to detect patterns and forecast the most prob-
able word choices that lead to a higher AI detection
probability [2].
In a recent study, abstracts created by ChatGPT were
submitted to academic reviewers, who only caught 68%
of these fakes [3]. However, AI detection software per-
formed much better while plagiarism checkers were of
almost no use.
188 J. NEXØE
The ability to accurately identify AI-generated papers
may depend on the sophistication of the ever-developing
AI systems and the quality of the resulting output. In
general, it is important for editors and reviewers to be
vigilant in evaluating the quality and reliability of all sci-
entific papers, regardless of whether they were written
by humans or AI.
It may be debated whether AI-generated papers
fulfill criteria regarding originality. It may be perceived
as, after all, plagiarized from ChatGPT. Some scientific
journals have adapted editorial policies that ban text
generated from AI, machine learning, or similar algo-
rithmic tools from submission and subsequent publica-
tion [4].
Fighting against this rapid development may be in
vain, as has been with most other developing technolo-
gies. The most fruitful approach probably is to accept
that ChatGPT among other technologies may be used in
conjunction with the researchers’ own scientific know-
ledge as a tool to create new ideas and to decrease the
burden of writing and formatting. It could also help sci-
entists publishing in a language that is not their native
language. Researchers should critically evaluate the out-
put and use it to inform further research and investiga-
tion. As ChatGPT cannot take any responsibilities
authorship should not be granted, however credit in an
acknowledgement may be appropriate.
ChatGPT and AI are extremely powerful technologies.
To some extent, the burden of appropriate use should
reside with the users.
Taylor & Francis Clarifies the Responsible use of AI
Tools in Academic Content Creation - Taylor & Francis
Newsroom (taylorandfrancisgroup.com)
References
[1] Lund BD, Wang T. Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and
GPT impact academia and libraries? LHTN. 2023;40(3):26–29.
doi: 10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009.
[2] AI Text Detector. ZeroGPT; 2023. https://www.zerogpt.com.
[3] Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo Y,
Pearson AT. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by
ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human
reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023 Apr 26;6(1):75. doi: 10.1038/
s41746-023-00819-6. PMID: 37100871; PMCID: PMC10133283.
[4] Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (editorial).
Science. 2023;379(6630):313. doi: 10.1126/science.adg7879.
Jørgen Nexøe
Institute of Public Health and the Research Unit of General
Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C,
Denmark
jnexoe@health.sdu.dk
ß 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as
Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms
on which this article has been published allow the posting of the
Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their
consent.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2023.2240114