• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?人工智能革命……在不道德的出版领域:人工智能会恶化我们功能失调的出版系统吗?
J Gen Physiol. 2024 Nov 4;156(11). doi: 10.1085/jgp.202413654. Epub 2024 Oct 7.
2
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.人工智能时代的出版伦理。
J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 26;39(33):e249. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e249.
3
Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process.人工智能在科学出版领域的应用日益普及:评估其在论文起草和评审过程中的作用、风险和伦理影响。
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2023 Nov 30;62(5):835-843. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2023-1136. Print 2024 Apr 25.
4
identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.确定科学同行评审中的性别差距。
Elife. 2023 Nov 3;12:RP90230. doi: 10.7554/eLife.90230.
5
Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.使用人工智能工具作为作者、同行评审员或编辑的最佳实践。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 31;25:e51584. doi: 10.2196/51584.
6
Use of large language models as artificial intelligence tools in academic research and publishing among global clinical researchers.全球临床研究人员在学术研究和出版中使用大语言模型作为人工智能工具的情况。
Sci Rep. 2024 Dec 30;14(1):31672. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-81370-6.
7
Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review.人工智能用于学术写作中的伦理困境以及肾脏病学术界同行评审的示例框架:一项叙述性综述
Clin Pract. 2023 Dec 30;14(1):89-105. doi: 10.3390/clinpract14010008.
8
Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?人工智能聊天机器人可以成为学术文章的作者吗?
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:6. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.6. Epub 2023 Feb 27.
9
The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.大语言模型对医学写作与出版的变革性影响:当前应用、挑战及未来方向
Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2024 Sep 1;28(5):393-401. doi: 10.4196/kjpp.2024.28.5.393.
10
Editorial: Generative artificial intelligence as a plagiarism problem.社论:生成式人工智能作为一种剽窃问题。
Biol Psychol. 2023 Jul;181:108621. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108621. Epub 2023 Jun 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Artificial Intelligence and Publishing Ethics: A Narrative Review and SWOT Analysis.人工智能与出版伦理:叙事性综述及SWOT分析
Cureus. 2025 May 14;17(5):e84098. doi: 10.7759/cureus.84098. eCollection 2025 May.
2
What happened to the pursuit of truth?对真理的追求怎么了?
J Gen Physiol. 2024 Nov 4;156(11). doi: 10.1085/jgp.202413672. Epub 2024 Oct 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Brazil's plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers.巴西研究生入学人数的急剧下降暗示着人们对学术科研职业的兴趣在降低。
Nature. 2024 Jun;630(8016):518-519. doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-01504-8.
2
Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use.ChatGPT正在侵蚀同行评审吗?迹象表明其使用了人工智能。
Nature. 2024 Apr;628(8008):483-484. doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-01051-2.
3
Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing.ChatGPT在我的学术写作中帮助我的三种方式。
Nature. 2024 Apr 8. doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-01042-3.
4
Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion.控制实验发现,推特推广没有带来可检测到的引用量增长。
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 20;19(3):e0292201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292201. eCollection 2024.
5
David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system.大卫对阵歌利亚:不道德出版体系中的早期职业研究者
Ecol Lett. 2024 Mar;27(3):e14395. doi: 10.1111/ele.14395.
6
Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research.人工智能与科研中的理解错觉。
Nature. 2024 Mar;627(8002):49-58. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0. Epub 2024 Mar 6.
7
Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants.利用大语言模型获取资助的十条简单规则。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2024 Mar 1;20(3):e1011863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011863. eCollection 2024 Mar.
8
'ChatGPT detector' catches AI-generated papers with unprecedented accuracy.“ChatGPT检测器”以前所未有的准确率捕捉由人工智能生成的论文。
Nature. 2023 Nov 6. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03479-4.
9
How ChatGPT is transforming the postdoc experience.ChatGPT 如何改变博士后经历。
Nature. 2023 Oct;622(7983):655-657. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03235-8.
10
How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing.ChatGPT和其他人工智能工具如何可能扰乱科学出版。
Nature. 2023 Oct;622(7982):234-236. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03144-w.

人工智能革命……在不道德的出版领域:人工智能会恶化我们功能失调的出版系统吗?

The artificial intelligence revolution...in unethical publishing: Will AI worsen our dysfunctional publishing system?

机构信息

Departamento de Psicobiologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.

Instituto de Ciências Biológicas (ICB), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG , Rio Grande, Brasil.

出版信息

J Gen Physiol. 2024 Nov 4;156(11). doi: 10.1085/jgp.202413654. Epub 2024 Oct 7.

DOI:10.1085/jgp.202413654
PMID:39373656
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11461141/
Abstract

Scholarly publishing has been shaped by the pressure of a liquid economy to become an exercise in branding more than a vehicle for the advancement of science. The current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to make matters worse. The new generation of large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in text generation and are already being used to write papers, grants, peer review reports, code for analyses, and even perform literature reviews. Although these models can be used in positive ways, the metrics and pressures of academia, along with our dysfunctional publishing system, stimulate their indiscriminate and uncritical use to speed up research outputs. Thus, LLMs are likely to amplify the worst incentives of academia, greatly increasing the volume of scientific literature while diluting its quality. At present, no effective solutions are evident to overcome this grim scenario, and nothing short of a cultural revolution within academia will be needed to realign the practice of science with its traditional ideal of a rigorous search for truth.

摘要

学术出版受到液体经济的压力影响,已经变成了一种品牌塑造,而不再是推动科学发展的工具。当前人工智能(AI)的革命可能会使情况变得更糟。新一代的大型语言模型(LLMs)在文本生成方面表现出了令人印象深刻的能力,并且已经被用于撰写论文、资助申请、同行评审报告、分析代码,甚至进行文献综述。尽管这些模型可以被积极地使用,但学术界的指标和压力,以及我们功能失调的出版系统,刺激了它们的不加区分和不加批判的使用,以加速研究成果的产出。因此,大型语言模型可能会放大学术界最糟糕的激励因素,大大增加科学文献的数量,同时降低其质量。目前,没有明显的有效解决方案来克服这种严峻的情况,只有在学术界进行一场文化革命,才能使科学实践重新与追求真理的传统理念保持一致。