SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
ChatGPT’s ability to generate realistic experimental images poses a new challenge to academic integrity
3 references·2 citing·19 second hop
ChatGPT’s ability to generate realistic experimental images poses a new challenge to academic integrity (2024)ChatGPT’s ability to generate realistic e…Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use (2023)Tools such as ChatGPT threate…ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on r…The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications (2016)The Prevalence of Inappropria…Ophthalmology Journals’ Guidelines on Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Analysis (2024)Ophthalmology Journals’ Guide…How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications? (2024)How is ChatGPT acknowledged i…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability (2018)Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy (2020)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing (2023)Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers (2023)Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT (2023)The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research: a review of author guidelines in leading journals across eight social science disciplines (2025)Beyond AI disclosure: Claim accountability and responsible research in scholarly publishing (2026)How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis (2026)ChatGPT: standard reporting guidelines for responsible use (2023)Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge (2023)Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis (2024)ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? (2023)From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing (2023)The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology (2023)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove868 cited
  • 2023Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use604 cited
  • 2016The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications287 cited

Cited by

  • 2024How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?23 cited
  • 2024Ophthalmology Journals’ Guidelines on Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Analysis11 cited

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