SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Letter to editor: Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers
3 references·4 citing·17 second hop
Letter to editor: Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers (2023)Letter to editor: Academic journals shoul…Using AI to write scholarly publications (2023)Using AI to write scholarly p…Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria (2023)Letter to editor: NLP systems…ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)ChatGPT is fun, but not an au…When using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Scientific Publications Authors should include the Prompts and the Generated Text as Part of the Submission (2024)When using Artificial Intelli…Let stochastic parrots squawk: why academic journals should allow large language models to coauthor articles (2024)Let stochastic parrots squawk…A Rapid Investigation of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content Footprints in Scholarly Publications (2024)A Rapid Investigation of Arti…Academic journals cannot simply require authors to declare that they used ChatGPT (2023)Academic journals cannot simp…ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)Human‐ and AI ‐based authorship: Principles and ethics (2023)Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: a review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer (2023)The accuracy-bias trade-offs in AI text detection tools and their impact on fairness in scholarly publication (2025)Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use (2023)ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing (2023)The Framing in Media Policy Narratives of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content: A Comparative Between Traditional Media and Social Media in China (2025)Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT (2023)Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence (2023)The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023)Using ChatGPT to conduct a literature review (2023)The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2024)ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope (2023)Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers (2023)Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy (2023)Responsible use of AI in social science research (2025)The Paradox of Ethical AI-Assisted Research (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023ChatGPT is fun, but not an author1,433 cited
  • 2023Using AI to write scholarly publications285 cited
  • 2023Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria62 cited

Cited by

  • 2024A Rapid Investigation of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content Footprints in Scholarly Publications19 cited
  • 2024When using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Scientific Publications Authors should include the Prompts and the Generated Text as Part of the Submission18 cited
  • 2024Let stochastic parrots squawk: why academic journals should allow large language models to coauthor articles16 cited
  • 2023Academic journals cannot simply require authors to declare that they used ChatGPT13 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work