A Place for Large Language Models in Scientific Publishing, Apart from Credited Authorship
Open accessThe 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
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 general consensus within the scientific community seems to indicate that LLMs are not eligible for (co-)authorship as they cannot be held accountable for upholding scientific precision and integrity.
“The general consensus within the scientific community seems to indicate that LLMs are not eligible for (co-)authorship (36) as they cannot be held accountable for upholding scientific precision and integrity.”
From How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science? (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 3 · Cited by 19
- Authors
- King, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- King, Michael R.
- ORCID
- King, Michael R.
- Venue
- Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
- Published
- 2023-04
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-98
- ISSN
- 1865-5025 (ISSN-L)
- 1865-5033
- PMC
- PMC10121920
- OpenAlex
- W4365450342
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- large language models, scholarly publishing, authorship, artificial intelligence in research, scientific writing
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
