Should Artificial Intelligence (AI) be considered as an author in academic publishing?

By the end of 2022, the emergence of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot boasting remarkable writing prowess, sent shockwaves through academia. While hailed for its impressive capabilities, concerns arose regarding its potential for deception. Reports surfaced revealing that several researchers had credited the chatbot, including its earlier iteration, as co-authors in their academic publications. In response, prestigious journals such as Nature and Science took a firm stance, declaring that AI chatbots like ChatGPT cannot be recognized as authors in the papers they publish.

Within the current legal framework, an AI chatbot lacks the status of personhood, rendering texts generated by such systems ineligible for copyright protection. Consequently, an AI chatbot cannot assume the role of authorship for a copyrighted work. Despite the advancement of AI chatbots like ChatGPT, which demonstrate an ability to produce original text, they remain akin to search engines in their inability to bear accountability for their outputs. Consequently, they fail to meet the ethical standards requisite for authorship in academic research.

An artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, called ChatGPT, which can generate human-like text, was released by Open AI in November 2022 and has since become a global issue. In education, concerns have arisen about students using this amazing chatbot to complete assignments [1].

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping various sectors worldwide, and academic publishing is no exception. With AI tools assisting in writing, editing, research, and data analysis, the debate surrounding whether AI should be recognized as an author in academic publishing is gaining momentum.

AI-generated works should be considered works protected by copyright law; it can meet a minimal degree of originality. Since giving authorship to AI would be contrary to civil law and the theory of natural person author, AI cannot be regarded as an author. The authorship of its creations should be vested in its users [2].

Proponents argue that AI should be acknowledged as an author for several reasons. Firstly, AI often contributes to the creation of original content, such as writing articles, generating research reports, or crafting data visualizations. This significant role in producing new knowledge suggests that AI deserves authorial credit. Additionally, AI aids in enhancing the quality of academic publishing by detecting plagiarism, checking grammar and style, and suggesting improvements, thereby ensuring papers are well-crafted, accurate, and error-free.

However, opponents raise valid concerns against AI authorship. They emphasize that AI lacks independent thought, functioning solely based on the data it’s trained on. Consequently, content generated by AI is derivative rather than genuinely original. Furthermore, the inability of AI tools to be held accountable for their output poses a challenge. Human authors bear ultimate responsibility for any errors or plagiarism in AI-generated papers, potentially undermining academic accountability.

The question of AI’s authorial status in academic publishing is multifaceted. Both sides present compelling arguments, reflecting the complexity of the issue. As AI advances, this debate will likely become more pressing.

In the interim, it’s crucial to recognize the potential benefits and risks of integrating AI into academic publishing. While AI can enhance efficiency and quality, it shouldn’t replace human authors. Human accountability remains paramount, with authors ultimately responsible for their published content. Balancing the utilization of AI with the preservation of human authorship is key to navigating the evolving landscape of academic publishing responsibly.

It’s essential to recognize that AI programs are not regarded as authors of a manuscript. Consequently, they do not receive credit, nor do they bear responsibility for the content they assist in generating. Authors remain solely accountable for any errors present in AI-assisted writing that appear in manuscripts.

References

1. Lee, J. Y. (2023). Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 20.
2. Wang, H. (2023). Authorship of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Works and Possible System Improvements in China. Beijing L. Rev., 14, 901.