PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The rapid advances in Generative AI tools have produced both excitement and worry about how AI will impact academic writing. However, little is known about what norms are emerging around AI use in manuscript preparation or how these norms might be enforced. We address both gaps in the literature by conducting a survey of 271 academics about whether it is necessary to report ChatGPT use in manuscript preparation and by running GPT-modified abstracts from 2,716 published papers through a leading AI detection software to see if these detectors can detect different AI uses in manuscript preparation. We find that most academics do not think that using ChatGPT to fix grammar needs to be reported, but detection software did not always draw this distinction, as abstracts for which GPT was used to fix grammar were often flagged as having a high chance of being written by AI. We also find disagreements among academics on whether more substantial use of ChatGPT to rewrite text needs to be reported, and these differences were related to perceptions of ethics, academic role, and English language background. Finally, we found little difference in their perceptions about reporting ChatGPT and research assistant help, but significant differences in reporting perceptions between these sources of assistance and paid proofreading and other AI assistant tools (Grammarly and Word). Our results suggest that there might be challenges in getting authors to report AI use in manuscript preparation because (i) there is not uniform agreement about what uses of AI should be reported and (ii) journals might have trouble enforcing nuanced reporting requirements using AI detection tools.
摘要：
生成人工智能工具的快速发展既让人兴奋，也让人担心人工智能将如何影响学术写作。然而,关于人工智能在手稿准备中的使用以及如何执行这些规范，人们知之甚少。我们通过对271位学者进行调查，以了解是否有必要报告ChatGPT在手稿准备中的使用，并通过领先的AI检测软件运行来自2,716篇已发表论文的GPT修改摘要，以查看这些检测器是否可以检测到手稿准备中的不同AI用途。我们发现，大多数学者不认为使用ChatGPT修复语法需要报告，但是检测软件并不总是得出这个区别，因为GPT用于修复语法的摘要经常被标记为有很高的机会被AI编写。我们还发现学者之间存在分歧，是否需要报告更多使用ChatGPT来重写文本，这些差异与道德观念有关，学术角色,和英语背景。最后,我们发现他们对报告ChatGPT和研究助理帮助的看法几乎没有差异，但这些帮助来源与付费校对和其他AI助手工具（Grammarly和Word）之间的报告感知存在显着差异。我们的结果表明，让作者报告AI在稿件准备中的使用可能存在挑战，因为（i）对于应该报告AI的使用没有统一的共识，以及（ii）期刊可能难以使用AI检测工具执行细微差别的报告要求。
