Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of ChatGPT in Academic Writing: Reply to Bom et al.
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?
There is a growing consensus on the necessity to verify human contribution, originality, and authenticity in academic outputs.
“Therefore, there is a growing consensus on the necessity to verify human contribution, originality, and authenticity in academic outputs (Lee, 2023;Perera Molligoda Arachchige & Stomeo, 2023).”
From GenAI et al.: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Perera Molligoda Arachchige & Stomeo, 2023
In the “Dear Editor” section (page unavailable), the authors call for acknowledging ChatGPT use, preserving human expertise, and upholding academic integrity and transparency. That supports concern about human contribution, but the paper does not establish a growing consensus or specifically call for verification of originality and authenticity in academic outputs. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bom HH. Exploring the opportunities and challenges of Chat- GPT in academic writing: a roundtable discussion. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;57(4):165-7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13139-023-00809-2. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bozkurt, A. (2024) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
A scoping review of ChatGPT's role in healthcare education and research
Shorey, S., Mattar, C., Pereira, T. L.-B., & Choolani, M. (2024) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106121 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
- Authors
- Perera Molligoda Arachchige, A. S., & Stomeo, N.
- Affiliations
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (IT)
- Venue
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
- Published
- 2023-08-12
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 213-214
- ISSN
- 1869-3474 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-3482
- PMC
- PMC10504185
- OpenAlex
- W4385782641
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, academic writing, large language models, artificial intelligence in writing, research ethics, generative AI
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
