Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can Researchers Write their Articles by Artificial Intelligence?

Mondal, Himel, Mondal, Shaikat·2023·Journal of Applied Sciences and Clinical Practice

Abstract

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked considerable interest in its potential applications across various domains, including scientific research and academic writing. However, many academicians are apprehensive about it because of ethical issues. This article explores the question of whether researchers can leverage AI to write their articles. By analyzing an existing model of taking assistance from third-party editing services, it is clear that the usage of AI in writing articles may not be considered unethical. However, authors must clearly mention for what purpose the AI was used and must acknowledge the help. Due to ease of accessibility and proven proficiency, researchers who cannot afford third-party writing services can harness the service of large language models like ChatGPT, Google Bard, Microsoft Bing, Perplexity, Claude, etc. and other AI applications for writing their scientific articles.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/jascp.jascp_44_23

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bhatia, 2023, ChatGPT for academic writing: A game changer or a disruptive tool?, J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol, 39, 1, 10.4103/joacp.joacp_84_23 · DOI
  2. Alkaissi, 2023, Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing, Cureus, 15, e35179

Cited by

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Mondal, H., & Mondal, S.
Venue
Journal of Applied Sciences and Clinical Practice
Published
2023-09
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
165-167
ISSN
  • 2772-364X
  • 2772-3658
Cited by
2
References
3
Language
en

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.