Cited by 924Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAcademic integrity and plagiarismPublishing and Scholarly Communication

ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing

Open access
Lund, Brady D., Wang, Ting, Mannuru, Nishith Reddy, Nie, Bing, Shimray, Somipam, Wang, Ziang·2023·Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

Abstract This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre‐trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text‐based user requests (i.e., a “chatbot”). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT‐3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.24750

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many authors have expressed concern that students are submitting papers generated by ChatGPT and other AI tools as their own original work, thereby attaining the performance goal but bypassing the learning goal.

    “Many authors have expressed concern that students are submitting papers generated by ChatGPT and other AI tools as their own original work, thereby attaining the performance goal but bypassing the learning goal.”

    From The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors (2023) · cites this paper as Lund et al., 2023

    The Authorship Attribution section discusses plagiarism concerns involving ChatGPT-generated scientific articles, and the Impact on Academic Job Expectations section raises the possibility of ChatGPT-produced papers being submitted to journals (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not establish that students are submitting such papers as their own work or discuss achieving performance goals while bypassing learning goals. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The different stances on content-generating applications are due to concern centered on plagiarism because it is challenging to trace and verify the originality of AI-generated content.

    “This is due to concern centered on plagiarism because it is challenging to trace and verify the originality of AI-generated content [59, 60].”
  • LLMs are discussed as systems that may help evaluate research quality, generate manuscript feedback, and support peer review workflows.

    “They are discussed not only as tools for writing, summarizing, or retrieving scientific texts, but also as systems that may help evaluate research quality, generate manuscript feedback, and support peer review workflows (Kousha & Thelwall, 2025;Lund et al., 2023;Thelwall, 2025a).”
  • Uncritical dependence on LLMs hinders the development of critical thinking skills.

    “This uncritical dependence not only hinders the development of critical thinking skills [6], [7].”

    From A Meta-Synthesis of Factual Accuracy and Citation Hallucination in LLM Academic Assistants (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion warns about reliance on automated tools, and Citation Practices urges researchers to review the literature carefully when using ChatGPT. Neither section says that dependence on LLMs hinders the development of critical thinking skills; searches for “critical thinking” and related terms found no passage addressing that effect. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Misattribution can lead to wrongful accusations or misinterpretation of an author's intent.

    “Misattribution can lead to wrongful accusations or misinterpretation of an author's intent [Lund et al., 2023].”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Lund et al., 2023

    The 'Authorship attribution is a major issue' section discusses ownership, plagiarism, and the difficulty of tracing sources in AI-generated text (page unavailable). Searches for wrongful accusations and misinterpretation of an author's intent found no passage addressing either consequence. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Beath, C., Becerra-Fernandez, I., Ross, J., & Short, J. (2012). Finding value in the information explosion. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 18-20.
  2. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
  3. Olsson, A., & Engelbrektsson, O. (2022). A thesis that writes itself: On the threat of AI- generated essays within academia. (Bachelor Thesis). https://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1669744/FULLTEXT02
  4. Pertile, S., Moreira, V. P., & Rosso, P. (2015). Comparing and combing content-and citation- based approaches for plagiarism detection. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(10), 2511-2526.
  5. Yanisky-Ravid, S. (2017). Generating Rembrandt: Artificial intelligence, copyright, and accountability in the 3A Era: The human-like authors are already here. Michigan State Law Review, Review 659.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • Emporia State University (US)
  • Zhejiang Tongji Vocational College of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (IN)
  • Baker University (US)
Corresponding author
Lund, Brady D.
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-03-10
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
570-581
ISSN
  • 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-1643
OpenAlex
W4323848232
Cited by
919
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 171 · 2025: 293 · 2024: 282 · 2023: 173
FWCI
230.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, generative AI, academic writing, scholarly publishing, research ethics, AI-generated text, GPT-3, natural language processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review