Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Arise robot overlords! A synergy of artificial intelligence in the evolution of scientific writing and publishing

Pediatric Research (2024)Cite this article

Artificial intelligence (AI) heralds a new wave of technological advancement. The domain of scientific writing and publishing, traditionally steeped in human effort, is experiencing an unprecedented transformation through AI’s integration, particularly with Large language models (LLMs) and Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs). LLMs have access to and are trained on massive amounts of data. GPTs can understand user inputs, analyze them, and generate human-like responses.

Currently there is no consensus amongst researchers or publishers as to what constitutes appropriate use of AI or what AI usage must be declared. As the capabilities and applications of AI grow, it is important to recognize its potential uses and limitations. We aim to describe the implications of AI in scientific writing and publication, exploring its potential to enhance efficiency and reliability, while also highlighting the need for vigilance against its pitfalls.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Research Kick. https://www.researchkick.com/. Accessed 5 March 2024.

  2. Consensus. AI Search Engine for Research. https://consensus.app/search/. Accessed 5 March 2022.

  3. Elicit. Find scientific research papers. https://elicit.com/?workflow=table-of-papers. Accessed 5 March 2022.

  4. ChatGPT. https://chat.openai.com/. 2022.

  5. Canva - Instant Photo Editing with AI. Canva. https://www.canva.com/features/ai-photo-editing/. Accessed 5 March 2022.

  6. Spataro, J. Introducing Microsoft 365 Copilot – your copilot for work (The Official Microsoft Blog, 2023), https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/03/16/introducing-microsoft-365-copilot-your-copilot-for-work/. Accessed 5 March 2024.

  7. Giglio, A. D. & Costa, M. U. P. D. The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. 69, e20230560 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Politzer-Ahles, S., Girolamo, T. & Ghali, S. Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 47, 100895 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Elkhatat, A. M., Elsaid, K. & Almeer, S. Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. Int J. Educ. Integr. 19, 1–16 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E. & Zou, J. GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns 4, 100779 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Noorden, R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature 624, 479–481 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Peoples, N., Østbye, T. & Yan, L. L. Burden of proof: combating inaccurate citation in biomedical literature. BMJ 383, e076441 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Proofig. AI-Powered Scientific Image Plagiarism checker. proofig. https://www.proofig.com. Accessed 5 March 2021.

  14. Jones, N. How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature 626, 697–698 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. King, E. ‘Science is not finished until it’s communicated’ - UK chief scientist. (Climate Home News, 2013), https://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/10/03/science-is-not-finished-until-its-communicated-uk-chief-scientist/. Accessed 5 March 2024.

  16. Rubin, R. It Takes an Average of 17 Years for Evidence to Change Practice-the Burgeoning Field of Implementation Science Seeks to Speed Things Up. JAMA, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.4387 (2023).

  17. Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S. & Grant, J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J. R. Soc. Med. 104, 510–520 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Motta, M. & Stecula, D. Quantifying the effect of Wakefield et al. (1998) on skepticism about MMR vaccine safety in the U.S. PloS One 16, e0256395 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ten health issues WHO will tackle this year. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  20. Altman, D. G. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308, 283 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Else, H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature 613, 423–423 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Casal, J. E. & Kessler, M. Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing. Res. Methods Appl. Linguist. 2, 100068 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ren, D., Tagg, A., Wilcox, H., & Roland, D. Identification of Human-Generated vs AI-Generated Research Abstracts by Health Care Professionals. JAMA Pediatr. (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The commercially available AI tools discussed in the manuscript is not an endorsement by the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Emergency Medicine, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, WA, USA

    Dennis Ren

  2. SAPPHIRE Group, Population Health Sciences, Leicester University, Leicester, UK

    Damian Roland

  3. Paediatric Emergency Medicine Leicester Academic (PEMLA) Group, Children’s Emergency Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK

    Damian Roland

Authors
  1. Dennis Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Damian Roland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Ren.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

D.R. is an AI clinical fellow at Glass Health, D.R. does not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ren, D., Roland, D. Arise robot overlords! A synergy of artificial intelligence in the evolution of scientific writing and publishing. Pediatr Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03217-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03217-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links