It is an interesting idea to add a paragraph addressing the use of KI in scientific papers, especially as the field of artificial intelligence continues to evolve and impact various disciplines. However, it may be difficult to enforce such a requirement as it would rely on authors voluntarily disclosing their use of KI in their research. Additionally, the use of KI is not necessarily a negative thing in and of itself, as it can assist with tasks such as data analysis and literature reviews. Ultimately, it is up to the scientific community to ensure that research is conducted ethically and transparently, and that proper credit is given to all contributors.

I recommend to read this manuscript.

ChatGPT in Academic Writing and Publishing: A Comprehensive Guide

Scientific writing is a difficult task that requires clarity, precision, and rigour. It also involves a large amount of research, analysis, and synthesis of information from various sources. However, scientific writing is also hard, time-consuming, and susceptible to errors. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as ChatGPT, can simplify academic writing and publishing. ChatGPT has many applications and uses in academic and scientific writing and publishing such as hypothesis generation, literature review, safety recommendations, troubleshooting, tips, paraphrasing and summarising, editing, and proofreading, journal selection, journal style formatting, and other applications.

In this book chapter, we will discuss the main advantages, examples, and applications of ChatGPT in academic and scientific writing from research conception to publishing.

Read online.

https://achtago.com/publications/list/chatgpt-in-academic-writing-and-publishing/

Download full text

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369817340_Chapter_2_ChatGPT_in_Academic_Writing_and_Publishing_A_Comprehensive_Guide

I believe that it would be inevitable, sooner or later, to use AI in scientific articles and other types of science production, such as text or script correction, etc. It would be like using R for statistics…nobody conducts statistics by hand anymore. Furthermore, there are some editorial companies, such as Elsevier, that have already incorporated the use of AI into their author policy. For instance, they ask authors to only use these technologies to improve readability and language, not to replace key researcher tasks, to apply the technology with human oversight and control, and to disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the content of their work. However, up to now using AI seems to be relatively limited or inefficient for certain tasks, since at least according to my experience with the chat of Bing (Microsoft), it is a system relatively limited in finding the most relevant papers in an area, and or for filtering between information produced by a scientific paper (with data evidence) or that is just mentioned on a web page. I believe AI is important for science, as an aid, but that so far it will not replace any mindful researchers. After all, the invention of calculators and of systems such as R did not end mathematics or statistics, respectively. On the contrary, they have helped them

Hello Dr Tilo Henning

I join you as one of those that only ever wrote articles with my own ideas and efforts. So I wonder if, as you way, there should be a section to point this out. Is it in acknowledgements or we need to make another section or heading altogether?

I am worried, very worried. that data generation in biological sciences is done by Chat GPT that does not match the reality of nature. that the results of these papers can be harmful for nature.

Many journals require that individual authors' contributions be specified. Let's assume that the text would be written by an AI, then the authors could not claim this part of the process for themselves.

Anton Güntsch I know that journals have such sections. But they are usually very vague, often not obligatory and have by no means the function of an affidavit statement. And while these paragraphs mostly the function to ensure balanced merits and avoid/prevent unjustified authorship of people, a paragraph detailing the usage of KI would rather serve to prevent fraud. The question is not who of the authors provided which percentage of content to a single study but is there content that wasn´t made by a natural person!? One could, of course, make such explanations mandatory to be added in the same section.

I understand the concern, and we are in a good time to talk about this. We also have to consider that the originality of a thought is not based on whether you can write well in English or not. Rather, it is the result of critical and creative thinking in science. As you may have noticed, there is a significant disparity in current science regarding researchers with limited English writing abilities being able to express their creative thinking. If it were poetry, I would agree more with all your comment. However, this is an opportunity for the great researchers of ALL AMERICA (and beyond to all countries where languages other than English are spoken and where learning English is a privilege) to showcase their scientific and creative thinking at a more competitive level in form and time. Let's think about this, if knowledge should be a "universal" property, why needs to be a property of a journal of a subset of people? The same is for AI chat usage. Who made the effort to make that knowledge or technique accessible to all? at