Introduction Plagiarism is appropriating another person\'s ideas, words, results, or processes without giving appropriate credit and usually claiming them to be one\'s own. Thus, plagiarism is a dishonest act of fraud or cheating. Objectives The objective of this study is to assess the perception of plagiarism among medical postgraduate (PG) students. Materials & Methods: An educational observational study was conducted among second-year PG students about the perception of plagiarism by using pre-test and post-test questionnaires after an orientation session on plagiarism and data analysis before the start of dissertation analysis. Questions included were on awareness and attitude towards plagiarism.  Results A survey involving 91 PG students assessed their understanding of plagiarism. Remarkably, the majority (97.7%) demonstrated awareness of plagiarism, yet only 18.6% had authored a published article. It was discovered that about 30% of the students had resorted to plagiarism at some point during their academic pursuits. Approximately 70.9% of the PG students were acquainted with the University\'s plagiarism policy. The survey highlighted a notable enhancement in plagiarism awareness among PG students, with their attitudes toward plagiarism evolving after participating in the session. Conclusion Plagiarism can be avoided by implementing rigorous guidelines, ensuring strict policy adherence, and providing comprehensive training before commencing work. Training, retraining, and strict institute policies will help increase awareness about plagiarism and reduce the percentage of plagiarism in scientific writing.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: The introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI has garnered significant attention. Among its capabilities, paraphrasing stands out.
UNASSIGNED: This study aims to investigate the satisfactory levels of plagiarism in the paraphrased text produced by this chatbot.
UNASSIGNED: Three texts of varying lengths were presented to ChatGPT. ChatGPT was then instructed to paraphrase the provided texts using five different prompts. In the subsequent stage of the study, the texts were divided into separate paragraphs, and ChatGPT was requested to paraphrase each paragraph individually. Lastly, in the third stage, ChatGPT was asked to paraphrase the texts it had previously generated.
UNASSIGNED: The average plagiarism rate in the texts generated by ChatGPT was 45% (SD 10%). ChatGPT exhibited a substantial reduction in plagiarism for the provided texts (mean difference -0.51, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.48; P<.001). Furthermore, when comparing the second attempt with the initial attempt, a significant decrease in the plagiarism rate was observed (mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.03; P<.001). The number of paragraphs in the texts demonstrated a noteworthy association with the percentage of plagiarism, with texts consisting of a single paragraph exhibiting the lowest plagiarism rate (P<.001).
UNASSIGNED: Although ChatGPT demonstrates a notable reduction of plagiarism within texts, the existing levels of plagiarism remain relatively high. This underscores a crucial caution for researchers when incorporating this chatbot into their work.

Extensive use of AI-generated texts culminated recently after the advent of large language models. Although the use of AI text generators, such as ChatGPT, is beneficial, it also threatens the academic level as students may resort to it. In this work, we propose a technique leveraging the intrinsic stylometric features of documents to detect ChatGPT-based plagiarism. The stylometric features were normalized and fed to classical classifiers, such as k-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, and Naïve Bayes, as well as ensemble classifiers, such as XGBoost and Stacking. A thorough examination of the classifier was conducted by using Cross-Fold validation, hyperparameters tuning, and multiple training iterations. The results show the efficacy of both classical and ensemble learning classifiers in distinguishing between human and ChatGPT writing styles with a noteworthy performance of XGBoost where 100 % was achieved for accuracy, recall, and precision metrics. Moreover, the proposed XGBoost classifier outperformed the state-of-the-art result on the same dataset and same classifier highlighting the superiority of the proposed feature style extraction method over TF-IDF techniques. The ensemble learning classifiers were also applied to the generated dataset with mixed texts, where paragraphs are written by ChatGPT and humans. The results show that 98 % of the documents were classified correctly as either mixed or human. The last contribution consists in the authorship attribution of the paragraphs of a single document where the accuracy reached 92.3 %.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research has significantly enhanced efficiency and accuracy but also introduced new forms of academic misconduct, such as data fabrication and text plagiarism using AI algorithms. These practices jeopardize research integrity and can mislead scientific directions. This study addresses these challenges, underscoring the need for the academic community to strengthen ethical norms, enhance researcher qualifications, and establish rigorous review mechanisms. To ensure responsible and transparent research processes, we recommend the following specific key actions: Development and enforcement of comprehensive AI research integrity guidelines that include clear protocols for AI use in data analysis and publication, ensuring transparency and accountability in AI-assisted research. Implementation of mandatory AI ethics and integrity training for researchers, aimed at fostering an in-depth understanding of potential AI misuses and promoting ethical research practices. Establishment of international collaboration frameworks to facilitate the exchange of best practices and development of unified ethical standards for AI in research. Protecting research integrity is paramount for maintaining public trust in science, making these recommendations urgent for the scientific community consideration and action.

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as \"Gemini\"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery.
METHODS: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors.
RESULTS: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: The paper studies the attitude to critical thinking, academic integrity and the Artificial Intelligence use of the Ukrainian medical PhD students.
METHODS: Materials and Methods: In 2023, 56 medical PhD students from the Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine, underwent the survey. The participation was voluntary, upon the oral consent. The data included in the survey questions include various aspects related to critical thinking, analysis skills, and attitudes towards plagiarism.
RESULTS: Results: A significant majority of the medical PhD students (75%) place high importance on critical thinking. While a majority (89.29%) apply analysis and critical thinking skills in their English studies, there\'s a notable percentage (7.14%) that is uncertain. Although most are aware of the unacceptability of cheating and plagiarism (75%), a small proportion admit to having plagiarized (12.5%). Only 30.4% of the respondents reported using GPT Chat for study. Responses to witnessing peers plagiarize or using Artificial Intelligence show a varied attitude, with many expressing unwillingness to report such incidents (30.36%).
CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions: The survey highlights the recognized importance of critical thinking in academic study among medical PhD students, while also points to areas where attitudes and practices regarding these skills could be improved. The study shows a vast area for improvement regarding academic integrity, as almost one-third of respondents need more defined standards. This definitely puts some questions before the present medical postgraduate education, and requires change of the educational paradigm, clear rules of academic conduct, and a system of control.

暂无摘要。

ChatGPT, a publicly available artificial intelligence large language model, has allowed for sophisticated artificial intelligence technology on demand. Indeed, use of ChatGPT has already begun to make its way into medical research. However, the medical community has yet to understand the capabilities and ethical considerations of artificial intelligence within this context, and unknowns exist regarding ChatGPT\'s writing abilities, accuracy, and implications for authorship.
We hypothesize that human reviewers and artificial intelligence detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and artificial intelligence-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. We also suspect that concrete differences in writing errors, readability, and perceived writing quality exist between original and artificial intelligence-generated text.
Twenty-five articles published in high-impact medical journals and a collection of Gynecology and Urogynecology journals were selected. ChatGPT was prompted to write 25 corresponding artificial intelligence-generated abstracts, providing the abstract title, journal-dictated abstract requirements, and select original results. The original and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were reviewed by blinded Gynecology and Urogynecology faculty and fellows to identify the writing as original or artificial intelligence-generated. All abstracts were analyzed by publicly available artificial intelligence detection software GPTZero, Originality, and Copyleaks, and were assessed for writing errors and quality by artificial intelligence writing assistant Grammarly.
A total of 157 reviews of 25 original and 25 artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were conducted by 26 faculty and 4 fellows; 57% of original abstracts and 42.3% of artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were correctly identified, yielding an average accuracy of 49.7% across all abstracts. All 3 artificial intelligence detectors rated the original abstracts as less likely to be artificial intelligence-written than the ChatGPT-generated abstracts (GPTZero, 5.8% vs 73.3%; P<.001; Originality, 10.9% vs 98.1%; P<.001; Copyleaks, 18.6% vs 58.2%; P<.001). The performance of the 3 artificial intelligence detection software differed when analyzing all abstracts (P=.03), original abstracts (P<.001), and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts (P<.001). Grammarly text analysis identified more writing issues and correctness errors in original than in artificial intelligence abstracts, including lower Grammarly score reflective of poorer writing quality (82.3 vs 88.1; P=.006), more total writing issues (19.2 vs 12.8; P<.001), critical issues (5.4 vs 1.3; P<.001), confusing words (0.8 vs 0.1; P=.006), misspelled words (1.7 vs 0.6; P=.02), incorrect determiner use (1.2 vs 0.2; P=.002), and comma misuse (0.3 vs 0.0; P=.005).
Human reviewers are unable to detect the subtle differences between human and ChatGPT-generated scientific writing because of artificial intelligence\'s ability to generate tremendously realistic text. Artificial intelligence detection software improves the identification of artificial intelligence-generated writing, but still lacks complete accuracy and requires programmatic improvements to achieve optimal detection. Given that reviewers and editors may be unable to reliably detect artificial intelligence-generated texts, clear guidelines for reporting artificial intelligence use by authors and implementing artificial intelligence detection software in the review process will need to be established as artificial intelligence chatbots gain more widespread use.