Audit AI search tools now, before they skew research

Michael Gusenbauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01613-w

IF: 64.8

2023-05-17

Nature

Abstract:Generative AI could be a boon for literature search, but only if independent groups scrutinize its biases and limitations. Generative AI could be a boon for literature search, but only if independent groups scrutinize its biases and limitations.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On the Use of Generative AI for Literature Reviews: An Exploration of Tools and Techniques

Peter Mozelius,Niklas Humble

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34190/ecrm.23.1.2528

2024-06-26

Abstract:To carry out a literature review often involves hard and tedious work. There is a tradition of using facilitating tools, that extended to the AI field in 2018 when iris.ai appeared. Today, in the emerging field of Generative AI tools based on Large Language Models, there has been rapid development of new literature search tools and approaches. This study has the aim of exploring this vast array of Generative AI tools, in a literature study where some of the found tools were used to facilitate the selection of relevant publication. Three research questions guided this study: RQ1) "What Generative AI tools can be found in literature?", RQ2) "Which of these tools could be of use in the literature review conducted in this study, and how?", and RQ3) "What are the ethical aspects of using Generative AI tools in literature studies?” The approach has been a scoping review, built around a search that combined the keywords: "AI supported", "AI generated", "AI based" and "Literature review". An initial result set was filtered with inclusion exclusion criteria in a strive for an interesting quality answer to the research questions. However, most publications that passed the filtering lacked any potential to contribute to answer the research questions. The most interesting finding in the first search was a hint about the new feature 'Scopus AI'. A new search with the Scopus AI tool resulted in a small but very relevant set of publications. These publications were analysed in a deductive inductive thematic analysis, and primary sorted into the categories of: 'Generative AI Tools', 'Supportive AI Techniques', and 'Ethical Issues'. Findings indicate that there is a wide variety of tools that can facilitate the skimming process of a literature, and to provide adequate summaries of retrieved publication. However, authors recommendation is to keep the tools on the facilitating support level, and that the main analysis and conclusion should be human conducted. With this, rather traditional approach, researchers will have clearly less ethical issues to consider. Finally, the ethical aspects of Generative AI tools in research ought to be investigated more in detail, in a separate future study.
Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy?

Paul G. Schmidt,Amnon J. Meir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.06981

2023-10-08

Abstract:Ever since the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022, serious concerns have been raised about the impact and potentially dire consequences of the increasingly widespread use of generative AI tools for purposes of scientific writing and publishing. We document the ongoing discussion in the science community with a review of news articles, editorials, and position statements by major scientific publishers; discuss the potential pitfalls of using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT as aids in scholarly writing; furnish evidence for the proposition that AI-induced contamination of the scientific literature is not only a threat, but already a reality; and call upon leaders in our field to develop policies and guidelines to stem the spread of such contamination. Closing on a positive note, we provide a brief overview of potentially useful capabilities and sensible applications of ChatGPT and similar AI tools for purposes of scholarly writing.

Computers and Society,General Mathematics,History and Overview
Generative AI Search Engines as Arbiters of Public Knowledge: An Audit of Bias and Authority

Alice Li,Luanne Sinnamon

2024-05-23

Abstract:This paper reports on an audit study of generative AI systems (ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Perplexity) which investigates how these new search engines construct responses and establish authority for topics of public importance. We collected system responses using a set of 48 authentic queries for 4 topics over a 7-day period and analyzed the data using sentiment analysis, inductive coding and source classification. Results provide an overview of the nature of system responses across these systems and provide evidence of sentiment bias based on the queries and topics, and commercial and geographic bias in sources. The quality of sources used to support claims is uneven, relying heavily on News and Media, Business and Digital Media websites. Implications for system users emphasize the need to critically examine Generative AI system outputs when making decisions related to public interest and personal well-being.

Information Retrieval,Human-Computer Interaction
Exploring the use of generative artificial intelligence in systematic searching: A comparative case study of a human librarian, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4 Turbo

Xiayu Summer Chen,Yali Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352241263532

2024-07-22

IFLA Journal

Abstract:IFLA Journal, Ahead of Print. The advancement of ChatGPT-powered artificial intelligence (AI) opens up new possibilities for conducting systematic reviews. This study aims to examine how ChatGPT-powered AI can assist in the steps involved in systematic reviews, and its potential and challenges. The authors utilize a comparative case study approach to examine the search-term-generation and article-retrieval capabilities among a human librarian, ChatGPT-4, and a ChatGPT-4 Turbo customized AI-Librarian Bot. The findings suggest that AI could expand the scope of search terms and queries, automating the more repetitive and formulaic aspects of the systematic-review process, while human expertise remains crucial in refining search terms and ensuring methodological rigor. Meanwhile, challenges remain for AI tools' capacity to access subscription-based or proprietary databases and generate sophisticated search strategies. This study advocates for a synergistic model where AI augments the systematic-review process, complementing the depth and nuance provided by human expertise in achieving accurate and comprehensive research outcomes.
Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarly Work

Rishab Jain,Aditya Jain

2023-12-04

Abstract:The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research across all disciplines is becoming ubiquitous. However, this ubiquity is largely driven by hyperspecific AI models developed during scientific studies for accomplishing a well-defined, data-dense task. These AI models introduce apparent, human-recognizable biases because they are trained with finite, specific data sets and parameters. However, the efficacy of using large language models (LLMs) -- and LLM-powered generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT -- to assist the research process is currently indeterminate. These generative AI tools, trained on general and imperceptibly large datasets along with human feedback, present challenges in identifying and addressing biases. Furthermore, these models are susceptible to goal misgeneralization, hallucinations, and adversarial attacks such as red teaming prompts -- which can be unintentionally performed by human researchers, resulting in harmful outputs. These outputs are reinforced in research -- where an increasing number of individuals have begun to use generative AI to compose manuscripts. Efforts into AI interpretability lag behind development, and the implicit variations that occur when prompting and providing context to a chatbot introduce uncertainty and irreproducibility. We thereby find that incorporating generative AI in the process of writing research manuscripts introduces a new type of context-induced algorithmic bias and has unintended side effects that are largely detrimental to academia, knowledge production, and communicating research.

Computers and Society,Human-Computer Interaction
The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing

Brady Lund,Manika Lamba,Sang Hoo Oh

2024-06-10

Abstract:Generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies like ChatGPT, have significantly impacted academic writing and publishing through their ability to generate content at levels comparable to or surpassing human writers. Through a review of recent interdisciplinary literature, this paper examines ethical considerations surrounding the integration of AI into academia, focusing on the potential for this technology to be used for scholarly misconduct and necessary oversight when using it for writing, editing, and reviewing of scholarly papers. The findings highlight the need for collaborative approaches to AI usage among publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors to ensure that this technology is used ethically and productively.

Digital Libraries,Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society
'Without these tools, I'd be lost': how generative AI aids in accessibility

Amanda Heidt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01003-w

IF: 64.8

2024-04-09

Nature

Abstract:A rush to place barriers around the use of artificial intelligence in academia could disproportionately affect those who stand to benefit most. A rush to place barriers around the use of artificial intelligence in academia could disproportionately affect those who stand to benefit most.

multidisciplinary sciences
The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing

Hilda Hadan,Derrick Wang,Reza Hadi Mogavi,Joseph Tu,Leah Zhang-Kennedy,Lennart E. Nacke

2024-06-27

Abstract:Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast. However, it is unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts. To investigate the impact of AI-augmented writing on peer reviews, we conducted a snippet-based online survey with 17 peer reviewers from top-tier HCI conferences. Our findings indicate that while AI-augmented writing improves readability, language diversity, and informativeness, it often lacks research details and reflective insights from authors. Reviewers consistently struggled to distinguish between human and AI-augmented writing but their judgements remained consistent. They noted the loss of a "human touch" and subjective expressions in AI-augmented writing. Based on our findings, we advocate for reviewer guidelines that promote impartial evaluations of submissions, regardless of any personal biases towards GenAI. The quality of the research itself should remain a priority in reviews, regardless of any preconceived notions about the tools used to create it. We emphasize that researchers must maintain their authorship and control over the writing process, even when using GenAI's assistance.

Computation and Language,Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction
Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis

Mike Perkins,Jasper Roe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142411.2

2024-01-16

Abstract:Background: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI (GenAI) have become more common in academic settings, it is necessary to examine how these tools interact with issues of authorship, academic integrity, and research methodologies. The current landscape lacks cohesive policies and guidelines for regulating AI's role in academic research which has prompted discussions among publishers, authors, and institutions. Methods: This study employs inductive thematic analysis to explore publisher policies regarding AI-assisted authorship and academic work. Our methods involved a two-fold analysis using both AI-assisted and traditional unassisted techniques to examine the available policies from leading academic publishers and other publishing or academic entities. The framework was designed to offer multiple perspectives, harnessing the strengths of AI for pattern recognition while leveraging human expertise for nuanced interpretation. The results of these two analyses are combined to form the final themes. Results: Our findings indicate six overall themes, three of which were independently identified in both the AI-assisted and unassisted, manual analysis using common software tools. A broad consensus appears among publishers that human authorship remains paramount and that the use of GenAI tools is permissible but must be disclosed. However, GenAI tools are increasingly acknowledged for their supportive roles, including text generation and data analysis. The study also discusses the inherent limitations and biases of AI-assisted analysis, necessitating rigorous scrutiny by authors, reviewers, and editors. Conclusions: There is a growing recognition of AI's role as a valuable auxiliary tool in academic research, but one that comes with caveats pertaining to integrity, accountability, and interpretive limitations. This study used a novel analysis supported by GenAI tools to identify themes emerging in the policy landscape, underscoring the need for an informed, flexible approach to policy formulation that can adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technologies.
The Use of Generative AI for Scientific Literature Searches for Systematic Reviews: ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing AI Performance Evaluation

Yong Nam Gwon,Jae Heon Kim,Hyun Soo Chung,Eun Jee Jung,Joey Chun,Serin Lee,Sung Ryul Shim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/51187

2024-05-14

Abstract:Background: A large language model is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) model that opens up great possibilities for health care practice, research, and education, although scholars have emphasized the need to proactively address the issue of unvalidated and inaccurate information regarding its use. One of the best-known large language models is ChatGPT (OpenAI). It is believed to be of great help to medical research, as it facilitates more efficient data set analysis, code generation, and literature review, allowing researchers to focus on experimental design as well as drug discovery and development. Objective: This study aims to explore the potential of ChatGPT as a real-time literature search tool for systematic reviews and clinical decision support systems, to enhance their efficiency and accuracy in health care settings. Methods: The search results of a published systematic review by human experts on the treatment of Peyronie disease were selected as a benchmark, and the literature search formula of the study was applied to ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing AI as a comparison to human researchers. Peyronie disease typically presents with discomfort, curvature, or deformity of the penis in association with palpable plaques and erectile dysfunction. To evaluate the quality of individual studies derived from AI answers, we created a structured rating system based on bibliographic information related to the publications. We classified its answers into 4 grades if the title existed: A, B, C, and F. No grade was given for a fake title or no answer. Results: From ChatGPT, 7 (0.5%) out of 1287 identified studies were directly relevant, whereas Bing AI resulted in 19 (40%) relevant studies out of 48, compared to the human benchmark of 24 studies. In the qualitative evaluation, ChatGPT had 7 grade A, 18 grade B, 167 grade C, and 211 grade F studies, and Bing AI had 19 grade A and 28 grade C studies. Conclusions: This is the first study to compare AI and conventional human systematic review methods as a real-time literature collection tool for evidence-based medicine. The results suggest that the use of ChatGPT as a tool for real-time evidence generation is not yet accurate and feasible. Therefore, researchers should be cautious about using such AI. The limitations of this study using the generative pre-trained transformer model are that the search for research topics was not diverse and that it did not prevent the hallucination of generative AI. However, this study will serve as a standard for future studies by providing an index to verify the reliability and consistency of generative AI from a user's point of view. If the reliability and consistency of AI literature search services are verified, then the use of these technologies will help medical research greatly.
A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI

Jakob Mokander,Justin Curl,Mihir Kshirsagar

2024-07-07

Abstract:The widespread use of generative AI systems is coupled with significant ethical and social challenges. As a result, policymakers, academic researchers, and social advocacy groups have all called for such systems to be audited. However, existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems, which display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. In this chapter, we address that gap by outlining a novel blueprint for how to audit such systems. Specifically, we propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits (of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems), model audits (of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release), and application audits (of applications based on top of generative AI systems) complement and inform each other. We show how audits on these three levels, when conducted in a structured and coordinated manner, can be a feasible and effective mechanism for identifying and managing some of the ethical and social risks posed by generative AI systems. That said, it is important to remain realistic about what auditing can reasonably be expected to achieve. For this reason, the chapter also discusses the limitations not only of our three-layered approach but also of the prospect of auditing generative AI systems at all. Ultimately, this chapter seeks to expand the methodological toolkit available to technology providers and policymakers who wish to analyse and evaluate generative AI systems from technical, ethical, and legal perspectives.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
On the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research

Bastian Burger,Dominik K. Kanbach,Sascha Kraus,Matthias Breier,Vincenzo Corvello

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-02-2023-0156

IF: 5.1

2023-04-08

European Journal of Innovation Management

Abstract:Purpose The article discusses the current relevance of artificial intelligence (AI) in research and how AI improves various research methods. This article focuses on the practical case study of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to provide a guideline for employing AI in the process. Design/methodology/approach Researchers no longer require technical skills to use AI in their research. The recent discussion about using Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), a chatbot by OpenAI, has reached the academic world and fueled heated debates about the future of academic research. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, AI will not replace our job; a human being using AI will. This editorial aims to provide an overview of the current state of using AI in research, highlighting recent trends and developments in the field. Findings The main result is guidelines for the use of AI in the scientific research process. The guidelines were developed for the literature review case but the authors believe the instructions provided can be adjusted to many fields of research, including but not limited to quantitative research, data qualification, research on unstructured data, qualitative data and even on many support functions and repetitive tasks. Originality/value AI already has the potential to make researchers' work faster, more reliable and more convenient. The authors highlight the advantages and limitations of AI in the current time, which should be present in any research utilizing AI. Advantages include objectivity and repeatability in research processes that currently are subject to human error. The most substantial disadvantages lie in the architecture of current general-purpose models, which understanding is essential for using them in research. The authors will describe the most critical shortcomings without going into technical detail and suggest how to work with the shortcomings daily.

management,business
Search Engines Post-ChatGPT: How Generative Artificial Intelligence Could Make Search Less Reliable

Shahan Ali Memon,Jevin D. West

2024-02-19

Abstract:In this commentary, we discuss the evolving nature of search engines, as they begin to generate, index, and distribute content created by generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Our discussion highlights challenges in the early stages of GenAI integration, particularly around factual inconsistencies and biases. We discuss how output from GenAI carries an unwarranted sense of credibility, while decreasing transparency and sourcing ability. Furthermore, search engines are already answering queries with error-laden, generated content, further blurring the provenance of information and impacting the integrity of the information ecosystem. We argue how all these factors could reduce the reliability of search engines. Finally, we summarize some of the active research directions and open questions.

Computers and Society,Information Retrieval,Artificial Intelligence
Navigating the light and shadow of scientific publishing faced with machine learning and generative AI

Federico Palmisani,Daniel Segelcke,Jan Vollert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4736

2024-10-05

European Journal of Pain

Abstract:Background The public release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked a boom and public interest in generative artificial intelligence (AI) that has led to journals and journal families hastily releasing generative AI policies, ranging from asking authors for acknowledgement or declaration to the outright banning of use. Results Here, we briefly discuss the basics of machine learning, generative AI, and how it will affect scientific publishing. We focus especially on potential risks and benefits to the scientific community as a whole and journals specifically. Conclusion While the concerns of editors, for example about manufactured studies, are valid, some recently implemented or suggested policies will not be sustainable in the long run. The quality of generated text and code is quickly becoming so high that it will not only be impossible to detect the use of generative AI but would also mean taking a powerful tool away from researchers that can make their life easier every day. Significance We discuss the history and current state of AI and highlight its relevance for medical publishing and pain research. We provide guidance on how to act now to increase good scientific practice in the world of ChatGPT and call for a task force focusing on improving publishing pain research with use of generative AI.

neurosciences,clinical neurology,anesthesiology
Generative AI: An In-depth Exploration of Methods, Uses, and Challenges

Shang Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/czptrz11

2024-03-13

Abstract:Recently, artificial intelligence has surged to the forefront of computer science, with generative AI emerging as the most sought-after research area. The success of generative AI hinges on advancements in algorithms, training frameworks, and data. Among these, training algorithms are of paramount importance. This article aims to shed light on several leading training algorithms in the domain. Generative AI has left a profound imprint on a myriad of industries. Intelligent publishing, advertising content creation, and finance are just a few sectors that have been revolutionized by this technology. As with all significant technological shifts, generative AI is not without its challenges. The implications it holds for employment, intellectual property rights, as well as security and privacy concerns, are profound. It's vital for stakeholders in the AI domain and beyond to consider and address these challenges. As generative AI continues to integrate more deeply into industries and our daily lives, proactive steps need to be taken to ensure ethical, secure, and equitable use. This not only guarantees the continued growth and trust in the technology but also safeguards society's values and norms in the face of rapid innovation.
How AI-powered science search engines can speed up your research

Helena Kudiabor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02942-0

IF: 64.8

2024-10-11

Nature

Abstract:Artificial-intelligence tools offer a variety of approaches to help scientists to sift through the literature — how can researchers use them responsibly? Artificial-intelligence tools offer a variety of approaches to help scientists to sift through the literature — how can researchers use them responsibly?

multidisciplinary sciences
Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content

Anil R. Doshi,Oliver P. Hauser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290

IF: 13.6

2024-07-13

Science Advances

Abstract:Creativity is core to being human. Generative artificial intelligence (AI)—including powerful large language models (LLMs)—holds promise for humans to be more creative by offering new ideas, or less creative by anchoring on generative AI ideas. We study the causal impact of generative AI ideas on the production of short stories in an online experiment where some writers obtained story ideas from an LLM. We find that access to generative AI ideas causes stories to be evaluated as more creative, better written, and more enjoyable, especially among less creative writers. However, generative AI–enabled stories are more similar to each other than stories by humans alone. These results point to an increase in individual creativity at the risk of losing collective novelty. This dynamic resembles a social dilemma: With generative AI, writers are individually better off, but collectively a narrower scope of novel content is produced. Our results have implications for researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners interested in bolstering creativity.

multidisciplinary sciences
Co-audit: tools to help humans double-check AI-generated content

Andrew D. Gordon,Carina Negreanu,José Cambronero,Rasika Chakravarthy,Ian Drosos,Hao Fang,Bhaskar Mitra,Hannah Richardson,Advait Sarkar,Stephanie Simmons,Jack Williams,Ben Zorn

2023-10-02

Abstract:Users are increasingly being warned to check AI-generated content for correctness. Still, as LLMs (and other generative models) generate more complex output, such as summaries, tables, or code, it becomes harder for the user to audit or evaluate the output for quality or correctness. Hence, we are seeing the emergence of tool-assisted experiences to help the user double-check a piece of AI-generated content. We refer to these as co-audit tools. Co-audit tools complement prompt engineering techniques: one helps the user construct the input prompt, while the other helps them check the output response. As a specific example, this paper describes recent research on co-audit tools for spreadsheet computations powered by generative models. We explain why co-audit experiences are essential for any application of generative AI where quality is important and errors are consequential (as is common in spreadsheet computations). We propose a preliminary list of principles for co-audit, and outline research challenges.

Human-Computer Interaction,Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language,Programming Languages
Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

Jakob Mokander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y

2024-07-07

Abstract:AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. This review article, which doubles as an editorial to Digital Societys topical collection on Auditing of AI, provides an overview of previous work in the field. Three key points emerge from the review. First, contemporary attempts to audit AI systems have much to learn from how audits have historically been structured and conducted in areas like financial accounting, safety engineering and the social sciences. Second, both policymakers and technology providers have an interest in promoting auditing as an AI governance mechanism. Academic researchers can thus fill an important role by studying the feasibility and effectiveness of different AI auditing procedures. Third, AI auditing is an inherently multidisciplinary undertaking, to which substantial contributions have been made by computer scientists and engineers as well as social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and industry practitioners. Reflecting this diversity of perspectives, different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. Specifically, a distinction can be made between technology-oriented audits, which focus on the properties and capabilities of AI systems, and process oriented audits, which focus on technology providers governance structures and quality management systems. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism, this article concludes, should be the interlinking of these available (and complementary) approaches into structured and holistic procedures to audit not only how AI systems are designed and used but also how they impact users, societies and the natural environment in applied settings over time.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Generative AI in medical writing: co-author or tool?

Richard Armitage

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp24x736605

2024-03-01

British Journal of General Practice

Abstract:ChatGPT is now 1 year old. This large language model (LLM), which was created by OpenAI and made freely available to the public on 30 November 2022, made such broad and disrupting impact before its first birthday that many believe the dawn of generative AI constitutes a technological era of similar import to electrical power.1 In late 2023, while GPT-4 (the latest model of ChatGPT) still leads the user-friendly LLM landscape, it faces growing competition from the likes of Meta's Llama, Microsoft's Bing AI, Quora's Poe, Anthropic's Claude-2, and Google's Bard. The generative power of these AI tools is rapidly disrupting almost every industry, including clinical medicine, healthcare and health systems, and medical writing.2 Indeed, authors who hopefully submit their manuscripts to the The Lancet and its sub-journals are now required to make a declaration regarding their use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in their work, attesting to their responsibility for the article contents. The Lancet declares that generative AI is not an author, and dictates that 'these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language' .3 But are these statements — the first a factual claim, the second a normative assertion — entirely true? Let's deal with each in turn. ...

medicine, general & internal,primary health care

Audit AI search tools now, before they skew research

On the Use of Generative AI for Literature Reviews: An Exploration of Tools and Techniques

Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy?

Generative AI Search Engines as Arbiters of Public Knowledge: An Audit of Bias and Authority

Exploring the use of generative artificial intelligence in systematic searching: A comparative case study of a human librarian, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4 Turbo

Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarly Work

The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing

'Without these tools, I'd be lost': how generative AI aids in accessibility

The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing

Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis

The Use of Generative AI for Scientific Literature Searches for Systematic Reviews: ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing AI Performance Evaluation

A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI

On the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research

Search Engines Post-ChatGPT: How Generative Artificial Intelligence Could Make Search Less Reliable

Navigating the light and shadow of scientific publishing faced with machine learning and generative AI

Generative AI: An In-depth Exploration of Methods, Uses, and Challenges

How AI-powered science search engines can speed up your research

Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content

Co-audit: tools to help humans double-check AI-generated content

Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

Generative AI in medical writing: co-author or tool?