SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications
0 references·8 citing·28 second hop
Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications (2023)Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly ma…Using Artificial Intelligence for Scholarly Writing (2025)Using Artificial Intelligence…Exploring the change in scientific readability following the release of ChatGPT (2025)Exploring the change in scien…Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies (2025)Defining the Boundaries of AI…Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence (2024)Publication Ethics in the Era…CSP em 40 anos de publicação científica (2024)CSP em 40 anos de publicação …AI vs academia: Experimental study on AI text detectors’ accuracy in behavioral health academic writing (2024)AI vs academia: Experimental …The Updated World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative AI in Relation to Scholarly Publications and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (May 2023) (2023)The Updated World Association…Artificial Intelligence is Irreversibly Bound to Academic Publishing — ChatGPT is Cleared for Scientific Writing and Peer Review (2023)Artificial Intelligence is Ir…Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2021)Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Scientists used ChatGPT to generate an entire paper from scratch — but is it any good? (2023)The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. (2023)Negotiating identity in the age of ChatGPT: non-native English researchers’ experiences with AI-assisted academic writing (2025)On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models (2021)Aion Framework: Dimensional Emergence of AI Consciousness, Observer-Induced Collapse, and Cosmological Portal Dynamics (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)‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals? (2024)Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science (2016)Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences (2020)More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record (2023)I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE (1950)ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers (2023)When using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Scientific Publications Authors should include the Prompts and the Generated Text as Part of the Submission (2024)Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions (2025)The Paradox of Ethical AI-Assisted Research (2025)The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021)ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing (2023)Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT (2023)Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots (2023)Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review Among Top 100 Medical Journals (2024)When and how to disclose AI use in academic publishing: AMEE Guide No.192 (2025)Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge (2023)Digital Mental Health Research Priorities, Revisited for the AI and Large Language Model Era (2026)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2025Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies64 cited
  • 2024Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence56 cited
  • 2024AI vs academia: Experimental study on AI text detectors’ accuracy in behavioral health academic writing31 cited
  • 2023The Updated World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative AI in Relation to Scholarly Publications and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (May 2023)18 cited
  • 2025Using Artificial Intelligence for Scholarly Writing14 cited
  • 2023Artificial Intelligence is Irreversibly Bound to Academic Publishing — ChatGPT is Cleared for Scientific Writing and Peer Review13 cited
  • 2025Exploring the change in scientific readability following the release of ChatGPT9 cited
  • 2024CSP em 40 anos de publicação científica8 cited

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