Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Editor Policy: ChatGPT, Bard Bing AI, and beyond.

Crawford, Joseph, Cowling, Michael, Ashton-Hay, Sally, Kelder, Jo-Anne, Middleton, Rebekkah, Wilson, Gail·2023·Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
DOI 10.53761/1.20.5.01
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial intelligence and large-language model chatbots have generated significant attention in higher education, and in research practice. Whether ChatGPT, Bard, Jasper Chat, Socratic, Bing AI, DialoGPT, or something else, these are all shaping how education and research occur. In this Editorial, we offer five editorial principles to guide decision-making for editors, which will also become policy for the Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. First, we articulate that non-human authorship does not constitute authorship. Second, artificial intelligence should be leveraged to support authors. Third, artificial intelligence can offer useful feedback and pre-review. Fourth, transparency of artificial intelligence usage is an expectation. And fifth, the use of AI in research design, conduct, and dissemination must comply with established ethical principles. In these five principles, we articulate a position of optimism for the new forms of knowledge and research we might garner. We see AI as a mechanism that may augment our current practices but will not likely replace all of them. However, we do issue caution to the limitations of large language models including possible proliferation of poor-quality research, Stochastic Parroting, and data hallucinations. As with all research, authors should be comfortably familiar with the underlying methods being used to generate data and should ensure a clear understanding of the AI tools being used prior to deployment for research.

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 · 10.53761/1.20.5.01

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Awdry, R., Dawson, P., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2022). Contract cheating: To legislate or not to legislate-is that the question?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 712-726.
  2. Azamfirei, R., Kudchadkar, S., & Fackler, J. (2023). Large language models and the perils of their hallucinations. Critical Care, 27(1), 1-2.
  3. Bender, E., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021, March). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610-623).
  4. Booten, K. (2020). Making Writing Harder: Computer-Mediated Authorship and the Problem of Care. Proceedings of ELO2020, Orlando.
  5. Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K. A. (2023). Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI). Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(3), 02. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.3.02 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Dawson, P. (2020). Cognitive offloading and assessment. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai & D. Boud (eds), Reimaging University Assessment in a Digital World (37-48). Springer.
  7. Dawson, P., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2018). Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 286-293.
  8. Eager, B., & Brunton, R. (2023). Prompting higher education towards AI-augmented teaching and learning practice. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(5), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.02 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Felzmann, H., Villaronga, E. F., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2019). Transparency you can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns. Big Data & Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719860542 · DOI
  10. Hamzaçebi, C., Akay, D., & Kutay, F. (2009). Comparison of direct and iterative artificial neural network forecast approaches in multi-periodic time series forecasting. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(2), 3839-3844.
  11. King, M., & ChatGPT. (2023). A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2010). Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Medicine, 7(2), e1000230.
  13. Lodge, J. M., Thompson, K., & Corrin, L. (2023). Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 1-8.
  14. Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post- pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), 07.
  15. Education and Information Technologies (2021). Retraction Note: Education and Information Technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7307-7319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10588-y · DOI
  16. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Samuel, A. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation-a refutation. Science, 132(3429), 741-742.
  18. Srivastava, M. (2023, February 17). A day in the life of ChatGPT as an academic reviewer: Investigating the potential of large language model for scientific literature review. OSF preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.10/wydct Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers. Nature, 613, 620-621. · DOI
  19. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Consideration for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313-313.
  21. van Dis, E. A., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224-226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023- 00288-7 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Xames, M. D. & Shefa, J. (2023) ChatGPT for research and publication: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.20 · DOI
  23. Woods, M., Paulus, T., Atkins, D. P., & Macklin, R. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS. ti and NVivo, 1994-2013. Social Science Computer Review, 34(5), 597-617.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Crawford, J., Cowling, M., Ashton-Hay, S., Kelder, J.-A., Middleton, R., & Wilson, G.
Venue
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2023-09-03
Volume
20
Issue
5
ISSN
1449-9789
DOI
10.53761/1.20.5.01
Cited by
36
References
1

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.