Navigating the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Scholarly Authorship: Transparency and Responsibility in the Technological Era

Abstract

Dear Editors,

We are writing in response to your recent editorials regarding the captivating subject of employing artificial intelligence (AI) in the composition of scholarly documents, with a specific focus on the notion of co-authoring with artificial intelligence [1,2]. We would like to express my appreciation to the European Journal of Therapeutics for its diligent commitment to upholding the ethical standards and academic integrity of scholarly publications. In the context of the swiftly progressing technological era, it is important to exercise caution in the utilization of AI in order to uphold our established academic and scientific customs. We concur with the perspective that the incorporation of AI in the production of scholarly papers ought to be explicitly disclosed within the methodology section, in light of its escalating significance in the composition procedure. Ensuring transparency is crucial, as it facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the impact that AI may have on output, including both good and negative implications [3].

Nevertheless, while we acknowledge the utility of AI, we respectfully hold a dissenting viewpoint about the proposition of attributing co-authorship to an AI system such as ChatGPT. The act of being an author entails a level of responsibility that beyond the capabilities of even the most capable AI tool. The AI system lacks the ability to comprehend, analyze, or morally assess the subtleties inherent in the work it contributed to, therefore cannot be held responsible for the accuracy and implications of the work produced. AI serves as a valuable tool for researchers, enhancing both their efficiency and the overall quality of their work [4]. Sophisticated laboratory equipment and complicated statistical software are not regarded as co-authors. The same logic applies to AI. The recognition of AI's significance in academia is crucial, but only to the extent of AI's essence and constraints. A tool serves as a supplementary resource to expedite and enhance the processes of research and writing, although it should not be regarded as an autonomous contributor.

As the dialogue around this topic continues to evolve, we look forward to seeing how international organizations such as ICMJE and COPE will adapt to this development [5]. With their solid criteria and careful tuning, they can guide us towards a future where we use AI effectively and ethically. Thank you for initiating this important conversation.

Sincerely yours,