Abstract:Dear Editors, We have been reading with great interest your editorial discussion on “Artificial Intelligence and Co-Authorship” which you initiated some time ago [1]. In the current era, the vast amount of data generated from routine applications, scientific research, and the resulting outcomes has surpassed what the human mind can read and evaluate. Therefore, there has been a need to summarize data and develop information processing-based applications for easy access, leading to the design of automated - artificial intelligence-based - tools. Nowadays, these tools are used in various processes, from data collection and analysis to hypothesis generation, experimentation, and simulation. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools is highly beneficial in conducting and reporting scientific research. Particularly, for tasks such as literature reviews, identifying research gaps, and learning about collaborations among researchers/institutions, a wide range of AI-based tools has been developed, making it easier for researchers to accomplish these tasks. However, researchers are still seeking solutions to expedite the time-consuming aspects of writing their research. AI can automate repetitive tasks efficiently and with minimal errors, allowing humans to focus on more creative and strategic tasks. They can make better decisions by forecasting the future based on evaluating various types of existing data. After analysing similar content, they can generate purposeful creative content. They can answer questions on topics that humans may not understand comprehensively and informatively. And of course, they can translate text and speeches accurately and fluently into other languages. Misuse of AI tools or misinterpretation of results obtained from these applications can have significantly adverse consequences. One notable example of this is the unchecked preparation of academic papers by AI-based software. In fact, ChatGPT has been listed as a co-author in at least four articles in the literature, but corrections have been made in some cases due to its inaccuracies. When the Web of Science is searched, it is seen that ChatGPT was removed from authorship by making corrections in 1 article in which ChatGPT was previously mentioned as a co-author [2], and in two articles in the British Journalism Review and in three articles about ChatGPT in different journals, it was mentioned as a group author. It has been observed that while AI models like ChatGPT can generate text that appears human-like, there can be issues with interpretation and the presentation of false references, as highlighted in studies in the literature. Therefore, AI-based software like ChatGPT should not be used as co-authors without control but should be used as tools like other software, with the written text going through human oversight. As a result, the full responsibility for what these AI tools produce should rest with the author(s) submitting the article and cannot be attributed to the AI [3]. Organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the JAMA Network are important regulatory bodies concerning the content and quality of academic publications. They emphasize that individuals who cannot fulfil authorship requirements, such as declaring conflicts of interest, managing publication rights, and licensing agreements because AI tools cannot fulfil these duties, cannot be authors of a paper [4-6]. In line with our recommendations above, these organizations also state that authors must bear full responsibility for everything the AI tool does within the manuscript and for the article's adherence to ethical standards. In conclusion, AI-based applications contribute significantly to academic research, just as they do in many other fields, and serve as important tools for researchers in academic writing. With long-term development and improvements, we believe that they will gain the ability to write a substantial portion of academic papers as their literature review capabilities expand. However, the accuracy and originality of the written information must always be subject to human oversight to make new contributions to the literature. At this point, AI-based applications come into play again, claiming to detect the difference between AI-generated and human-created content with approximately 99% accuracy. Cases perceived as AI-generated content have been corrected through legal action or appeals to higher authorities [7]. Ultimately, the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT and AI-generated content in academic studies, like other features of academic work, should be regulated with ethical considerations. Yours Sincerely,

Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools

Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reporting guidelines for clinical trials of artificial intelligence interventions: the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines

Artificial Intelligence: Impact and Challenges to Authors, Journals and Medical Publishing

Measuring the Effectiveness of AI Tools in Clinical Research and Writing: A Case Study in Healthcare

Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

From advancements to ethics: Assessing ChatGPT’s role in writing research paper

ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Concerns and Ethical Considerations

Discussion on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools Usage in the Scientific World

Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension

Artificial Intelligence's Development and Challenges in Scientific Writing

PRISMA AI reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on AI in healthcare

The Potential and Concerns of Using AI in Scientific Research: ChatGPT Performance Evaluation

Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?

A Preliminary Checklist (METRICS) to Standardize the Design and Reporting of Studies on Generative Artificial Intelligence–Based Models in Health Care Education and Practice: Development Study Involving a Literature Review

Navigating the reporting guideline environment for computational pathology: A review

Artificial intelligence at the pen's edge: Exploring the ethical quagmires in using artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT for assisted writing in biomedical research

ChatGPT: ethical concerns and challenges in academics and research

[Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extensionDiretrizes para relatórios de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão CONSORT-AI]

Pushing the Boundaries of Scientific Research with the use of Artificial Intelligence tools: Navigating Risks and Unleashing Possibilities

Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review