SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Human Reviewers' Ability to Differentiate Human-Authored or Artificial Intelligence–Generated Medical Manuscripts
16 references·0 citing·37 second hop
Human Reviewers' Ability to Differentiate Human-Authored or Artificial Intelligence–Generated Medical Manuscripts (2025)Human Reviewers' Ability to Differentiate…Rethinking Plagiarism in the Era of Generative AI (2024)Rethinking Plagiarism in the …Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection (2023)Will ChatGPT get you caught? …Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use (2023)Tools such as ChatGPT threate…Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge (2023)Nonhuman “Authors” and Implic…Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers (2023)Comparing scientific abstract…ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)ChatGPT is fun, but not an au…Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing (2023)Can linguists distinguish bet…AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community (2023)AI-generated research paper f…AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generated texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in Sports & Exercise Medicine manuscript generation (2023)AI did not write this manuscr…Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models (2021)Ethical and social risks of h…Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry (2020)Artificial intelligence versu…All the News That’s Fit to Fabricate: AI-Generated Text as a Tool of Media Misinformation (2020)All the News That’s Fit to Fa…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric (2016)Beat it, impact factor! Publi…Youtube as a source of information on Ebola virus disease (2015)Youtube as a source of inform…Misinformation Propagation in the Age of Twitter (2014)Misinformation Propagation in…I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE (1950)Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. (1999)Computing Machinery and Intelligence (1950) (2004)Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3) (2021)What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion (2021)Chat-GPT; validating Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in education sector via ubiquitous learning mechanism (2023)Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning (2018)The science of fake news (2018)The spread of true and false news online (2018)News from Generative Artificial Intelligence Is Believed Less (2022)Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023)How persuasive is AI-generated propaganda? (2024)Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023)Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (1988)The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines (2019)The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines (2020)Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review (2023)Assessing the nexus of Generative AI adoption, ethical considerations and organizational performance (2024)Graduate students’ use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement (2024)CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric? (2017)Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study (2017)How the Geographic Diversity of Editorial Boards Affects What Is Published in JCR-Ranked Communication Journals (2020)The Fallacy of AI Functionality (2022)Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views (2023)The Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Mental Health (2024)ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? (2023)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope (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)Detecting AI content in responses generated by ChatGPT, YouChat, and Chatsonic: The case of five AI content detection tools (2023)OpenAI ChatGPT-Generated Results: Similarity Index of Artificial Intelligence-Based Contents (2023)Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say? (2023)Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists (2023)Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text (2023)Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023ChatGPT is fun, but not an author1,433 cited
  • 2023Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers1,097 cited
  • 2023Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use604 cited
  • 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models477 cited
  • 2023Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge420 cited
  • 2020Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry401 cited
  • 2020All the News That’s Fit to Fabricate: AI-Generated Text as a Tool of Media Misinformation358 cited
  • 2023Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing260 cited
  • 2023Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection259 cited
  • 2016Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric220 cited
  • 2023AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community196 cited
  • 2014Misinformation Propagation in the Age of Twitter170 cited
  • 2023AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generated texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in Sports & Exercise Medicine manuscript generation168 cited

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

  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • 2015Youtube as a source of information on Ebola virus disease136 cited
  • 2024Rethinking Plagiarism in the Era of Generative AI81 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.