International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa EDITORIAL The Legitimacy of Artificial Intelligence and the Role of ChatBots in Scientific Publications Authors’ Contribution: Melnyk Yu. B. 1,2 ABDEF , Pypenko I. S. 1,2,3 ABDEF A – Study design; B – Data collection; 1 Kharkiv Regional Public Organization “Culture of Health”, Ukraine C – Statistical analysis; 2 Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH, Ukraine D – Data interpretation; 3 Educational Center KRPOCH, Ukraine E – Manuscript preparation; F – Literature search; Received: 03.04.2023; Accepted: 10.05.2023; Published: 30.06.2023 G – Funds collection Abstract Background and Developing and using ChatBots based on artificial intelligence (AI) has raised Aim of Study: issues about their legitimacy in scientific research. Authors have increasingly begun to use AI tools, but their role in scientific publications remains unrecognized. In addition, there are still no accepted norms for the use of ChatBots, and there are no rules for how to cite them when writing a scientific paper. The aim of the study: to consider the main issues related to the use of AI that arise for authors and publishers when preparing scientific publications for publication; to develop a basic logo that reflects the role and level of involvement of the AI and the specific ChatBots in a particular study. Results: We offer the essence of the definition “Human-AI System”. This plays an important role in the structure of scientific research in the study of this new phenomenon. In exploring the legitimacy of using AI-based ChatBots in scientific research, we offer a method for indicating AI involvement and the role of ChatBots in a scientific publication. A specially developed base logo is visually easy to perceive and can be used to indicate ChatBots’ involvement and contributions to the paper for publication. Conclusions: The existing positive aspects of using ChatBots, which greatly simplify the process of preparing and writing scientific publications, may far outweigh the small inaccuracies they may allow. In this Editorial, we invite authors and publishers to discuss the issue of the legitimacy we give to AI, and the need to define the role and contribution that ChatBots can make to scientific publication. Keywords: ChatBot, artificial intelligence, Human-AI System, legitimacy, logo, scientific publication Copyright: © 2023 Melnyk Yu. B., Pypenko I. S. Published by Archives of International Journal of Science Annals DOI DOI https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2023.1.1 Conflict of interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests Peer review: Double-blind review Source of support: This research did not receive any outside funding or support Information about Melnyk Yuriy Borysovych (Corresponding Author) – https://orcid.org/0000- the authors: 0002-8527-4638; ijsa.office@gmail.com; Doctor of Philosophy in Pedagogy, Associate Professor; Chairman of Board, Kharkiv Regional Public Organization “Culture of Health” (KRPOCH); Director, Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH, Kharkiv, Ukraine. Pypenko Iryna Sergiivna – https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-540X; Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, Associate Professor, Secretary of Board, Kharkiv Regional Public Organization “Culture of Health”; Co-Director, Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH; Director, Educational Center KRPOCH, Kharkiv, Ukraine. 5 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Dear Authors and Publishers, This paper was not written by a ChatBot and is intended characteristic – learnability, as well as the use of the for humans. It is likely that in the near future there will Large Language Model (LLM). be a need to introduce such alerts for scientific To answer the above question, it is necessary to consider publications. We are now seeing an increasing trend of the essence of this phenomenon. There are many aspects using ChatBots based on artificial intelligence (AI) in to this problem: from the physical level (availability and scientific research and writing. It is no secret that quality of servers) to the moral and ethical level (rules, machine-readable texts today are more demanding and norms, values, etc.). more readable. We live in a time when machines write There is no denying that AI, including ChatBots such as texts that are read by machines far more often than by GPT, has enormous potential to greatly facilitate our humans. daily lives and be an indispensable assistant in Several companies have announced the development of professional activities. AI-based ChatBots: OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, A number of scientists believe that AI and ChatBots are Microsoft’s Bing (a search engine with a ChatBot), etc. real competitors of humans in their professional activities There are already many AI tools with different and may replace them in many areas in the near future specializations for text, photos, videos, etc. AI tools are (Çalli & Çalli, 2022; Dans, 2019; Dimitriadou & Lanitis, developing at an unimaginably fast pace. 2023; Singh & Sood, 2022). Figure 1 shows the AI tools available to users for writing There are also often radical views that argue that the text. development of AI and the proliferation of ChatBots could lead to a loss of control over them and even the Figure 1 extinction of humanity (Farahani, 2023). AI Tools for Writing Text It is normal to have different points of view about new phenomena. However, one cannot ignore the personal position of those who are leading the development of these technologies and systems. They are more immersed in the problem than others, aware of the latest research, and able to anticipate trends more objectively. Their disagreement and lack of a unified view on the prospects of using AI can have ambiguous consequences. On the one hand, it generates competition, which contributes to the development of this market and to innovation. On the other hand, we cannot be completely sure that we will not lose something more important in the pursuit of profit and the desire to lead. The aim of the study. To consider the main issues related to the use of AI that arise for authors and publishers when preparing scientific publications for publication; to develop a basic logo that reflects the role and level of involvement of the AI and the specific ChatBots in a particular study. Results and Discussion In this paper, we will not discuss the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations for human use of AI. We Note. The logos shown in the figure are taken from public will limit ourselves to considering the problem in the area sources (from the official websites of the companies). of using AI for scientific research and publication. To be They are not ranked by ratings or other indicators. fair, the rivalry between AI and humans is indeed growing. In the near future, we can expect AI to Is ChatBots an advanced search engine? Or is it a real increasingly displace humans from certain areas of human intellectual competitor capable of exploring, activity, including consulting services, telemedicine, learning, improving, creating? online education, journalism, IT, etc. Discussions about the trends and replacement of humans This problem raises a number of fundamental questions: by AI, and the possible threats associated with it, have can AI significantly influence (replace) human activity in been ongoing since the term was introduced by John the Human–Human System with the new Human-AI McCarthy (1959) in the middle of the last century. System? This type of discussion is characteristic of most This is a fundamentally new system that raises even more innovations. Think back to the discussions about questions, especially how it will affect the quality of life robotics. Just as in the current AI situation, people saw of the individual himself. benefits, problems, and threats. In the AI situation, things First of all, it is necessary to describe this definition. have become even more complicated because it has a new 6 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Human-AI System is a complicated dynamic complex of The right segment with a white background contains the interactions between living and non-living matter, is an “AI Chatbot” inscription. This indicates that the author(s) accumulation of coordinated, interdependent and of the manuscript used AI-based Chatbot. Below the interconnected informational-technological actions of inscription, A, B, C, etc. letters in alphabetical order human and AI, oriented to learn from the information indicate this contribution to the research. obtained, designed to effectively perform tasks and The name of the Chatbot/toolkit(s) in the Materials and achieve goals. Methods section; the author(s) can include the name of While the answers to some questions are obvious the Chatbot developer in the Acknowledgments section. (technology and robotization have made heavy and Authors may disagree because using the logo looks like monotonous work easier, computerization and the co-authoring with AI. In anticipation of this Internet have helped speed up information retrieval and disagreement, we suggest looking at the actual processing), the use of AI, including ChatBots, remains capabilities of ChatBots and their role in preparing the uncertain. This is especially true in the intellectual paper. After all, ChatBots are quite capable of performing sphere: scientific research, media publications, etc. study design, data collection, statistical analysis, data Some of the positive things about using AI and ChatBots interpretation, manuscript preparation, literature are that they can find relevant documents, summarize text searches... The author only needs to specify the topic, key and draw conclusions from documents, make predictions, parameters, and manuscript design requirements, and that answer questions quickly, and argue for answers based will be enough for ChatBot to write a review article or on the latest scientific research. even an original article. Despite all these impressive benefits, we have some We assume that in the near future, such papers will fill doubts about the pace and scope of AI delegation. Would publishers’ email inboxes. Therefore, the dilemma of not the use of AI accelerate the pace of life so much that quality or quantity in scientific publications will become we lose control over it? You would agree that this small particularly relevant (Melnyk & Pypenko, 2021). factor could radically affect our lives. Therefore, the Figure 2 problem of AI legitimacy needs to be addressed as soon Layout of a Basic Logo to Indicate the Use of AI-Based as possible. Chatbot in a Publication Since scientists are (still) the leaders of innovation and the level of development of society depends on them, let us consider the role of ChatBots in scientific publications. It is in scientific publications that ideas are first expressed and then put into practice, significantly affecting human activity and life on the planet as a whole. Existing search engines and the emergence of new ChatBots, such as ChatGPT, which use language models, greatly simplify the process of preparing and writing scientific publications. They can help authors automate Note. research workflows such as literature searching, 1. The presented logo is the authors’ own creation. literature review, statistical analysis, and more. 2. If the author(s) used an AI-based Chatbot in the In this Editorial, we would like to introduce our idea of manuscript, we recommend using a contribution creating a digital platform that has the potential to classification index for the manuscript. legitimize and regulate the use of AI, intelligent search Example of a letter designation: A – Study Design; B – engines, ChatBots in scientific and practical human Data Collection; C – Statistical Analysis; D – Data activities. And first of all, it should be implemented for Interpretation; E – Manuscript Preparation; F – Literature scientific publications. Search… We believe that the method we have developed, indicating AI involvement and ChatBots contributions to Are the papers written by ChatBots the result of the scientific publications, can solve this problem. We offer intellectual activity of the author, who has skillfully set to use a logo that is visually easy to perceive and the parameters for entering information, or are they still essentially reflects the role and level of involvement of the product of the ChatBot, which has a share in co- the AI and the specific ChatBots in a particular study. authorship? We have developed a basic logo layout that can be used Let us try to answer the question of who owns the to indicate the use of AI-based ChatBots in a publication. authorship of such a publication objectively. The logo has a color image and a black and white image. Despite the significant contributions that ChatBots can Consider the black and white image. The basic logo make, at this stage ChatBots cannot be considered layout (Figure 2) is a rectangle with rounded corners, legitimate authors of a scientific paper. divided into two segments by the background. If only because ChatBots are not responsible for the text The left segment with a gray background contains a they write, they cannot sign a statement about the hexagonal figure with the AIC abbreviation centered on presence or absence of a conflict of interest. Such a white background. The AIC abbreviation stands for AI- statement is required by most scientific journals, based Chatbot as well as Academic International including the International Journal of Science Annals Corporation, which provides this platform. (IJSA). 7 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa However, there is a precedent of ChatGPT having a ChatBot. In doing so, the question posed to the ChatBot profile in Scopus (ChatGPT, n. d.), as well as papers and the answer received from the ChatBot should be published by prestigious international publishers in clearly stated. which ChatGPT is listed as an author (O’Connor & In our opinion, information about the use of ChatBot ChatGPT, 2022). should necessarily be reflected in the methodology with Also noteworthy is the book “Impromptu: Amplifying a correct indication of which ChatBot was used by the Our Humanity through AI”, in which GPT-4 writes: “I author, where and to what extent. The name of ChatBot would like to thank Reid Hoffman for inviting me to co- and its characteristics should be specified in the author this book with him”. Please note that Reid References list. Hoffman, a leader in the field of AI, states on the title Our recommendation is also based on the fact that in the page “By Reid Hoffman with GPT-4” (Hoffman with near future it will probably be impossible to hide the GPT-4, 2023). involvement of ChatBots in the writing of a scientific There is one case in the literature where ChatGPT has paper. ChatBots-creating companies will start using answered negatively to the question of whether it meets something like a “watermarking” on the bot’s output to all of the International Committee of Medical Journal make plagiarism easier to spot. The San Francisco-based Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship – “ChatGPT can company OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, has already assist in the drafting or revising of a work, but it cannot announced this. OpenAI guest researcher Scott Aaronson fulfill all of the ICMJE criteria for authorship” said that “the technology would work by subtly tweaking (Anderson, 2023). the specific choice of words selected by ChatGPT, …, in Perhaps it is a question of specific criteria for authorship, a way that wouldn’t be noticeable to a reader, but would rather than ChatGPT’s refusal to acknowledge its role in be statistically predictable to anyone looking for signs of writing. In any case, we have not received a clear answer machine-generated text” (Hern, 2022). to this question. Therefore, the answer should be sought So there is a good chance that if you try to pretend to be in the aspect of ethics, as well as the willingness of the the author of text written by a ChatBot, you may be person to recognize the authorship of ChatGPT or not. detected. Turnitin has already begun work on developing Todd Carpenter conducted a ChatGPT survey on the an AI-based text detection tool (Chechitelli, 2023). impact of AI on science communication. Specifically, he In early April 2023, the American Psychological asked about the ethics for an author of using AI in Association (APA) website published information with developing a scholarly paper. As ChatGPT learned from guidelines for quoting and reproducing text generated by the response, ethics “depends on the specific context and ChatBots (McAdoo, 2023). the expectations of the research community in which the We recommend that Authors of our Journal use these article will be published” (Carpenter, 2023). standards when preparing a manuscript and citing text ChatGPT itself sees no ethical problems with the use of generated by ChatBots. AI in scientific writing. However, it notes that authors It is important to note the statement of the Committee of must “clearly state this in the article and provide Publication Ethics (COPE). On its website, the appropriate credit to the AI program” (Carpenter, 2023). Committee has published its official position on Springer Nature and Taylor & Francis Publishers suggest authorship and the use of AI tools (COPE Council, 2021; that AI contributions should be reflected in the methods COPE, 30 January 2023; COPE, 13 February 2023; or acknowledgements section, rather than being listed as COPE, 23 February 2023; Watson & Stiglic, 2023). Also an author (Stokel-Walker, 2023). a number of papers on using AI for scientific writing This position is justified by the important characteristic (Çalli & Çalli, 2022; Dans, 2019; Dimitriadou & Lanitis, of authorship – responsibility for publication. 2023; Farahani, 2023; Singh & Sood, 2022). In this context, it should be noted that it is known that AI Today, COPE is virtually the only organization in the has convincingly described the results of studies scientific world that promotes ethical principles in (specifying the organizations that conducted them and scientific publishing. COPE Council members warn that the quantitative indicators). However, when clarifying the increasing role of AI in research writing “has the information, he could not confirm it with any sources significant implications for research integrity and the and apologized for the error and confusion in his need for improved means and tools to detect fraudulent statement (Davis, 2023). research” (COPE, 23 March 2023). These facts point to the need for caution and responsible This is a matter of concern for those scientific publishers use of information obtained from AI. It is important to who conduct their activities responsibly and put into remember that human remains responsible and practice the principles of scientific publishing ethics and accountable for copyright infringement. the COPE standards. If someone claims undivided authorship, he/she should The IJSA is a full member of the COPE (COPE, n.d.). objectively, based on facts, state the role of ChatBot in Thanks to this, the members of the IJSA Editorial Board the scientific publication, claim full responsibility for the were able to participate online in events dedicated to the content of his/her manuscript and the result, including the discussion of this topical issue (COPE, 23 March 2023). parts created by ChatBots, as well as the degree of originality of his/her publication. Perhaps there is no Conclusions shame in stating that the research design, data collection, We started our Editorial with a warning: this paper was or statistical analysis was done using a particular not written by a ChatBot and is intended for humans. 8 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Although we don’t have the slightest doubt that it will be turnitins-ai-writing-and-chatgpt-detection- read by AI, because this paper will be converted into capability multiple formats and found in several dozen COPE. (2023, January 30). Artificial intelligence in the scientometric databases, repositories, and search engines. news. It is time for humans to define the legitimacy we give https://publicationethics.org/news/artificial- to AI. intelligence-news We have offered the essence of the definition “Human- COPE. (2023, February 13). Authorship and AI tools. AI System”. This allows us to clarify the essential COPE position statement. features of the new phenomenon under consideration, https://publicationethics.org/cope-position- which opens prospects for its further study. statements/ai-author Authors should be transparent about the use of AI tools. COPE. (2023, February 23). Artificial intelligence and This will allow readers to know what and how the paper authorship. was created, and it will allow reviewers, editors, and https://publicationethics.org/news/artificial- publishers to check the quality of the paper. intelligence-and-authorship We encourage you to consult the recommendations of COPE. (2023, March 23). Artificial intelligence (AI) and leading publishers Springer Nature and Taylor & Francis, fake papers. as well as the expertise of COPE Council members on the https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum- ethics of scientific publication, and the recommendations discussions/artificial-intelligence-fake-paper of APA experts on citing and reproducing ChatBot- COPE Council. (2021, September). COPE Discussion generated text. document: Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision The need to determine the legitimacy of using AI-based making – English. ChatBots in scientific research prompted us to develop a https://doi.org/10.24318/9kvAgrnJ method for indicating AI involvement and the role of COPE. (n. d.). International Journal of Science Annals ChatBots in a scientific publication. [COPE Members page]. COPE. Retrieved March We recommend using the developed base logo to indicate 17, 2023, from ChatBots’ involvement and contributions to the writing https://publicationethics.org/members/internation of the paper. This would be appropriate for authors, al-journal-science-annals reviewers, editors, readers, and, from our point of view, Dans, E. (2019, February 6). Meet Bertie, Heliograf and ethical. Cyborg, the new journalists on the block. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2019/ Funding Source 02/06/meet-bertie-heliograf-and-cyborg-the-new- This research did not receive any outside funding or journalists-on-the-block/?sh=416c2163138d support. Davis, P. (2023, January 13) Did ChatGPT just lie to me? The Scholarly Kitchen. References https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/13/di Anderson, K. (2023, January 13). ChatGPT says it’s not d-chatgpt-just-lie-to-me/ an author. The Geyser. https://www.the- Dimitriadou, E., & Lanitis, A. (2023). A critical geyser.com/chatgpt-says-its-not-an-author/ evaluation, challenges, and future perspectives of Çalli, B. A., & Çalli, L. (2022). Understanding the using artificial intelligence and emerging utilization of artificial intelligence and robotics in technologies in smart classrooms. Smart Learning the service sector. In S. B. Kahyaoğlu (Eds.), The Environments, 10, 12. Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Governance, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00231-3 Economics and Finance: Vol. 2. Accounting, Farahani, M. S. (2023). Applications of artificial Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: intelligence in social science issues: a case study Theory and Application (pp. 243-263). Springer. on predicting population change. Journal of the https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8997-0_14 Knowledge Economy. Carpenter, T. A. (2023, January 11). Thoughts on AI’s https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01270-4 impact on scholarly communications? An Hern, A. (2022, December 31). AI-assisted plagiarism? interview with ChatGPT. The Scholarly Kitchen. ChatGPT bot says it has an answer for that. The https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/11/ch Guardian. atgpt-thoughts-on-ais-impact-on-scholarly- https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/de communications/ c/31/ai-assisted-plagiarism-chatgpt-bot-says-it- ChatGPT. (n. d.). Scopus Author ID: 58024851600 has-an-answer-for-that [Scopus Author Identifier]. Scopus. Retrieved Hoffman, R. with GPT-4. (2023). Impromptu: April 01, 2023, from Amplifying our humanity through AI. Dallepedia https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?author LLC. https://www.impromptubook.com/wp- Id=58024851600&ref=the-geyser.com content/uploads/2023/03/impromptu-rh.pdf Chechitelli, A. (2023, January 13). Sneak preview of McAdoo, T. (2023, April 7). How to cite ChatGPT. APA. Turnitin’s AI writing and ChatGPT detection https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt capability. Turnitin. McCarthy, J. (1959). Programs with common sense. In https://www.turnitin.com/blog/sneak-preview-of- Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the 9 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Mechanization of Thought Processes, 756-791. Vol. 471. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (pp. 337-348). Springer. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/mcc59/mcc59.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2535-1_26 Melnyk, Yu. B., & Pypenko, I. S. (2021). Dilemma: Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on Quality or quantity in scientific periodical research papers: Many scientists disapprove. publishing. International Journal of Science Nature, 613, 620-621. Annals, 4(2), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2021.2.1 Watson, R., & Stiglic, G. (2023, February 23). Guest O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT. (2022). Open artificial editorial: The challenge of AI chatbots for journal intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools editors. for academic progress or abuse? Nurse Education https://publicationethics.org/news/challenge-ai- in Practice, 66, 103537. chatbots-journal-editors https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 Singh, R., & Sood, M. (2022). An introductory note on Dr. Yuriy Melnyk, the pros and cons of using artificial intelligence Director of KRPOCH Publishing, for cybersecurity. In D. Gupta, A. Khanna, Editor-in-Chief of the IJSA S. Bhattacharyya, A. E. Hassanien, S. Anand, A. Jaiswal (Eds.), International Conference on Dr. Iryna Pypenko, Innovative Computing and Communications: Technical Editor of the IJSA Cite this article as: Melnyk, Yu. B., & Pypenko, I. S. (2023). The legitimacy of artificial intelligence and the role of ChatBots in scientific publications. International Journal of Science Annals, 6(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2023.1.1 The electronic version of this article is complete. It can be found online in the IJSA Archive https://ijsa.culturehealth.org/en/arhiv This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en). 10