Arguably ChatGPT jeopardizes the integrity and validity of the academic publications instead of ethically facilitating them. ChatGPT can apparently fulfill a portion of one of the four authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), i.e., "drafting." However, the authorship criteria by ICMJE must all be collectively met, not singly or partially. Many published manuscripts or preprints have credited ChatGPT by including it in the author byline, and the academic publishing enterprise seems to be unguided on how to handle such manuscripts. Interestingly, PLoS Digital Health removed ChatGPT off a paper which had ChatGPT listed initially in the author byline of the preprint version. Revised publishing policies are, thus, promptly required to guide a consistent stance regarding ChatGPT or similar artificial content generators. Publishing policies must accord among publishers, preprint servers ( https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers ), universities, and research institutions worldwide and across different disciplines. Ideally, considering any declaration of the contribution of ChatGPT to writing any scientific article should be recognized as publishing misconduct immediately and be retracted. Meanwhile, all parties involved in the scientific reporting and publishing must be educated about how ChatGPT fails to meet the essential authorship criteria, so that no author must submit a manuscript with ChatGPT contributing as a "co-author." Meanwhile, using ChatGPT for writing laboratory reports or short summaries of experiments may be acceptable, but not for academic publishing or formal scientific reporting.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Authorship; ChatGPT; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; Scientific misconduct.
© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Biomedical Engineering Society.