I consult the almighty chatGPT frequently for additional information as this saves me hours of wading through my own database, Pubmed, Scholar and Goggle Hits.<\/p>\n
But I have my own opinion, I never cut & paste as this is always running at risk (1) to plagiarize unknowingly and (2) to produce nonsense.<\/p>\n
Miryam Naddaf<\/a> has an article about this<\/p>\n In a survey of nearly 5,000 researchers, some 19% said they had already tried using LLMs to \u2018increase the speed and ease\u2019 of their review. But the survey, by publisher Wiley, headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey, didn\u2019t interrogate the balance between using LLMs to touch up prose, and relying on the AI to generate the review.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And well, maybe I am already sticking to the NEJM<\/a> that said<\/p>\n Although human expert review should continue to be the foundation of the scientific process, LLM feedback could benefit researchers<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n <\/p>\n I consult the almighty chatGPT frequently for additional information as this saves me hours of wading through my own database, Pubmed, Scholar and Goggle Hits. But I have my own opinion, I never cut & paste as this is always running at risk (1) to plagiarize unknowingly and (2) to produce nonsense. Miryam Naddaf has … Continue reading Is it a crime to use AI for peer review?<\/span>