Cited by 59Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics and Social Impacts of AIAcademic Writing and Publishing

Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT

Open access
Polonsky, Michael Jay, Rotman, Jeffrey D.·2023·Australasian Marketing Journal

Abstract

Academics have long relied on technological tools to support their research, with these tools growing in sophistication over time. As these tools have advanced, they have allowed researchers to create knowledge more effectively than could have been undertaken by humans alone. However, this paper argues that some new technologies may be moving from simple tools to being collaborators in research, with their abilities contributing not only to identifying previously unidentified relationships in the data, but also synthesising and explaining information to external audiences. Relying on existing literature and questions posed to ChatGPT, we argue that artificial intelligence tools have, or will have, the ability to meet the four conditions specified in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship (the Vancouver Protocol), warranting these technologies to become co-authors on the advancement of academic endeavours; not just background support.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/14413582231167882

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Polonsky, M. J., & Rotman, J. D.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Polonsky, Michael Jay
Venue
Australasian Marketing Journal
Published
2023-04-14
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
91-96
ISSN
  • 1441-3582 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-3349
OpenAlex
W4365816617
Cited by
59
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
ChatGPT, authorship criteria, ICMJE recommendations, artificial intelligence in research, academic writing, authorship ethics

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