Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Indeed, the Open Science Collaboration (2016), published in Science , contained 270 contributing authors making up approximately 100 teams, each conducting their own replication project.”
BackgroundMethodDwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While there has been discussion of the ethical issues surrounding AI in research (Du & Xie, 2021; Dwivedi et al., 2021), we advance the discussion further, by suggesting that AI has become (or at minimum, will become) more than simply a tool.”
BackgroundWhat is research collaboration?
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(96)00917-1 · Cited by 2,994 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Pavlik, J. V. (2023) · Journalism & Mass Communication Educator · doi:10.1177/10776958221149577 · Cited by 972 · cited 3× · see citing works
“It is recognised that the intellectual contribution of AI is being debated in various forums (e.g. Pavlik, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2023) and there are other issues impacting academia, such as the use of AI in student assignments, also being discussed (e.g. King, 2023; O’Connor & ChatGPT, 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Zhou, Q.-H. (2015) · Chinese Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.cnre.2016.01.001 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit
Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/20150211 · Cited by 678 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future research agenda
Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., & Tussyadiah, I. P. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.001 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Paradoxes of artificial intelligence in consumer markets: Ethical challenges and opportunities
Du, S., & Xie, C. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.024 · Cited by 610 · see citing works
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use
(2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1 · Cited by 605 · see citing works
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?
O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Understanding and creating art with AI: Review and outlook
Cetinic, E., & She, J. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications · doi:10.1145/3475799 · Cited by 579 · see citing works
Australian code for the responsible conduct of research
Australia, U. (2018) · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence: The light and the darkness
Grewal, D., Guha, A., Satornino, C. B., & Schweiger, E. B. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.043 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Diagnosis of breast cancer based on modern mammography using hybrid transfer learning
Khamparia, A., Bharati, S., Podder, P., Gupta, D., Khanna, A., Phung, T. K., & Thanh, D. N. H. (2021) · Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing · doi:10.1007/s11045-020-00756-7 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Robot will take your job: Innovation for an era of artificial intelligence
Rampersad, G. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.019 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Learning from Data: An Empirics-First Approach to Relevant Knowledge Generation
Golder, P. N., Dekimpe, M. G., An, J., van Heerde, H. J., Kim, D. S. U., & Alba, J. W. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429221129200 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Harris, M. T. H., Qi, A., Jeagal, L., Torabi, N., Menzies, D., Korobitsyn, A., Pai, M., Nathavitharana, R. R., & Khan, F. A. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221339 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence: Does Consciousness Matter?
Hildt, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01535 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Saka, A. B., Oyedele, L. O., Akanbi, L. A., Ganiyu, S. A., Chan, D. W. M., & Bello, S. A. (2023) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2022.101869 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
AMR, N. G. H. R. U. O. G. S. O. (2020) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002244 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Speciesism: an obstacle to AI and robot adoption
Schmitt, B. H. (2019) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-019-09499-3 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Coppola, F., Faggioni, L., Gabelloni, M., Vietro, F. D., Mendola, V., Cattabriga, A., Cocozza, M. A., Vara, G., Piccinino, A., Monaco, S. L., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710982 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in marketing: A bibliographic perspective
Feng, C. M., PARK, A. W., PITT, L. F., Kietzmann, J., & Northey, G. (2020) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.07.006 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
The Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence
Tibbetts, J. (2018) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/bix136 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
What is new with Artificial Intelligence? Human–agent interactions through the lens of social agency
Pagliari, M., Chambon, V., & Berberian, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954444 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Wenzlaff, K., & Spaeth, S. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4302443 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Jha, N., Lee, K., & Kim, Y. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272715 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
How can machine learning aid behavioral marketing research?
Hagen, L., Uetake, K., Yang, N., Bollinger, B. K., Chaney, A. J. B., Dzyabura, D., Etkin, J., Avi Goldfarb, B., Liu, L., Sudhir, K., et al. (2020) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09535-7 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Data Mining with SPSS Modeler : Theory, Exercises and Solutions
Wendler, T., & Grttrup, S. (2020) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28709-6 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Engstrom, T., Strong, J., Sullivan, C. M., & Pole, J. D. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221118993 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Proserpio, D., Hauser, J. R., Liu, X., Amano, T., Burnap, A., Guo, T., Lee, D., Lewis, R. A., Misra, K., Schwarz, E., et al. (2020) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09538-4 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Should the deceased be listed as authors?
Helgesson, G., Bülow, W., Eriksson, S., et al. (2019) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2018-105304 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Time to recognize authorship of open data
(2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00921-x · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Emerging Research Trends in Marketing: A Review of Australasian Marketing Journal
Thaichon, P., Quach, S., & Ngo, L. V. (2022) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1177/14413582221110450 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors’ Network
Editors’ Network, E. S. O. C. (. T. F., Alfonso, F., Zelveian, P., et al. (2019) · Clinical Research in Cardiology · doi:10.1007/s00392-019-01436-8 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Brodie, R. J., Soutar, G. N., & McColl‐Kennedy, J. R. (2022) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1177/14413582221094031 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Editorial: Anticipatory Systems: Humans Meet Artificial Intelligence
Chen, M., Lughofer, E. D., Rubio, J. D. J., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721879 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Younis, H. A., Eisa, T. A. E., Nasser, M., Sahib, T. M., Noor, A. A., Alyasiri, O. M., Salisu, S., Hayder, I. M., & Younis, H. A. (2024) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics14010109 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Developing the HAKI model as a conceptual framework for AI-assisted academic research
Shahini, A. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02041-4
Sallam, M. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.02.19.23286155 · Cited by 3,123 · see citing works
“However, other researchers suggested the possibility of inclusion of ChatGPT as an author in some specified instances [37,79].”
Background
- Authors
- Polonsky, M. J., & Rotman, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Polonsky, Michael Jay
- Venue
- Australasian Marketing Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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