The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This is due to concern centered on plagiarism because it is challenging to trace and verify the originality of AI-generated content [59, 60].”
From Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals (2025) · cites this paper as [59]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Lund et al., 2023
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the citing paper
“Finding answers to this question is urgent as LLMs are already starting to permeate the academic landscape (10–17).”
From How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science? (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“This forecast supports claims made by other scholars, who argue that LLMs will help automate mundane tasks and free up space for creative thinking (Lund et al. 2023;Dwivedi et al. 2023).”
From Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system (2025) · cites this paper as Lund et al. 2023
In the citing paper
“This outcome resonates with the scholarly discourse which highlights how generative AI can be used to enhance texts, such as with brainstorming (Staiman 2023), crafting literature reviews (Lucey and Dowling 2023), and improving text clarity (Lund et al. 2023).”
From Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system (2025) · cites this paper as Lund et al. 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515
Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415 · Cited by 9,955
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · cited 1×
“Although ChatGPT's massive Internet data set offers a wide range of perspectives and voices, Emily Bender, a computational linguist, has noted that size does not guarantee diversity (Bender et al., 2021).”
BackgroundThe Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding
Yang, Z., Dai, Z., Yang, Y., Carbonell, J., Salakhutdinov, R., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.08237 · Cited by 6,687
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220
(1968) · PubMed · Cited by 4,803
Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP
Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1355 · Cited by 3,684
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Alutto J. A., 2008, Final report of the AACSB international impact of research task force
- Beath C., 2012, Finding value in the information explosion, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 18
- Caplow T., 1958, The academic marketplace
- 10.1080/08989621.2023.216853 · DOI
- Lokman A. S., 2018, Proceedings of the future technologies conference, 1012
- Müller V. C., 2021, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2021)
- 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
- 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, 659
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–923 of 923
Han, T., Yuan, Y., Zhou, N., & Fan, Z. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14090221
Sridharan, K., & Sivaramakrishnan, G. (2026) · Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/15562646261488630
Artificial intelligence skills for library reference services among librarians: a systematic review
Ijiekhuamhen, O. P., Odede, I. R., & Ijeh, A. O. (2026) · Information Services & Use · doi:10.1177/18758789261491152
Governing the evidence base: An empirical framework of AI archetypes for policy analysis
Turobov, A., & Coyle, D. (2026) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2026.10100
Koppang, L. H., Andersen, S. R., & Lorås, L. (2026) · Fokus på familien · doi:10.18261/fokus.54.3.3
Ismaili, Y. (2026) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2026.2741356
Transforming Research Management and Knowledge Creation With Large Language Models
Brahimi, T., Sarirete, A., & Marir, N. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83662-878-120261008
Pasha, M. I. (2026) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3923/jai.2026.94.99
Alam, M. S., Asmawi, A., Haque, M. H., Fatema, S., Ullah, M., Patwary, M. N., Fatema, T., & Akhter, H. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02263-6
The Cyborg, the Muse, and the Des[ai]gner: A Generative Praxis for a Symbiotic Future
Mora, R. A., & Golovátina‐Mora, P. (2026) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/10778004261489175
Yahaya, A., Okafor, S. C., Pantami, A. M., Kaosisochukwu, U., Ohaji, J. C., Nwankwo, C. M.-J., Deborah, O. O., Olaoba, J. O., Gabriels, D. P., Usiosefe, H. I., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10880027/v1
Ma, J., Chen, T., Zuo, R., Johnson, T. P., Welch, E. W., Frandell, A., Arroyo‐Machado, W., & Michalegko, L. (2026) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.70064
Moulaison, H. L., & Thach, H. (2026) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-06-2026-0383
Human-AI Academic Co-Writing: A Systematic Review of Cognition, Authorship, and ResponsibilityPreprint
Goruslu, V. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11245863/v1
Rashidov, A. (2026) · International Conference on Networks, Computers and Communications (ICNCCom) · doi:10.1109/icnccom69117.2026.11736220
Andriansyah, Y. (2026) · Millah Journal of Religious Studies · doi:10.20885/millah.vol25.iss2.editorial
Kim, H. (2026) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-07-2026-0462
Elkhoudary, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7674992
Barahate, S. S., Kahar, A., & Joshi, J. V. (2026) · Journal of Indian Dental Association · doi:10.33882/jida.15.ida-81
Emerging research information practices in the era of generative artificial intelligence
Qin, C., Pee, L. G., Chen, X., & Wang, X. (2026) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.70124
Hakimi, M., Hakimi, M., & Sazish, B. (2026) · Journal of Science and Education (JSE) · doi:10.58905/jse.v7i1.62
Hashem, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1953305
ChatGPT in Teacher Education: Reducing Pre-Service Teachers’ Cognitive Load
ÜZÜMCÜ, Ö., HAKKOYMAZ, S., SIVACI, S., & Özcan, M. (2026) · Kuramsal Eğitimbilim · doi:10.30831/akukeg.1825933
Metadata
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
