ABSTRACT
Background: Following the 2023 surge in popularity of large language models like ChatGPT, significant ethical discussions emerged regarding their role in academic authorship. Notable ethics organizations, including the ICMJE and COPE, alongside leading publishers, have instituted ethics clauses explicitly stating that such models do not meet the criteria for authorship due to accountability issues.Objective: This study aims to assess the prevalence and ethical implications of listing ChatGPT as an author on academic papers, in violation of existing ethical guidelines set by the ICMJE and COPE.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus to identify instances where ChatGPT was credited as an author, co-author, or group author.Results: Our search identified 14 papers featuring ChatGPT in such roles. In four of those papers, ChatGPT was listed as an "author" alongside the journal's editor or editor-in-chief. Several of the ChatGPT-authored papers have accrued dozens, even hundreds of citations according to Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.Discussion: The inclusion of ChatGPT as an author on these papers raises critical questions about the definition of authorship and the accountability mechanisms in place for content produced by artificial intelligence. Despite the ethical guidelines, the widespread citation of these papers suggests a disconnect between ethical policy and academic practice.Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for corrective measures to address these discrepancies. Immediate review and amendment of the listed papers is advised, highlighting a significant oversight in the enforcement of ethical standards in academic publishing.
ABSTRACT
Malondialdehyde (MDA) is a product of lipid peroxidation that is often determined in abiotic stress-related phytoremediation research. This study assessed (July 14, 2022) the frequency of eight nomenclatural forms of MDA between 2001 and 2021 using three major databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS9). The most common form (75,060, 57,874, and 65,663 times in PubMed, Scopus, and WoS, respectively) of MDA was "malondialdehyde", followed by "malonaldehyde" (68,240, 3815, and 2337 times in these three databases, respectively). According to WoS, the journals that used "malondialdehyde" and "malonaldehyde" most frequently were Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Springer-Nature) (587 times) and The Journal of Chemical Physics (AIP Publishing) (57 times). Other less-frequent forms were: malonyldialdehyde, malonic dialdehyde, malon-dialdehyde, malone dialdehyde, malonic aldehyde, and malonodialdehyde. We recommend that the editors of journals that publish papers with themes that are closely associated with plant stress specify in their instructions for authors their journal's preferable nomenclatural form of MDA. The plant abiotic stress community, including phytoremediation specialists, need to debate this topic with the objective of seeking a standardized nomenclatural form of MDA, which would help to fortify the integrity of searches in major databases by allowing all relevant literature to be accurately identified. Novelty statementMalondialdehyde (MDA), a product of lipid peroxidation that is often determined in stress-related phytoremediation research, has various forms to its name. These nomenclatural variations were assessed in PubMed-, Scopus-, and Web of Science-indexed literature. This is the first study to detect, report, quantify and debate these forms of MDA.
