This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Baker, M. (2016). Stat-checking software stirs up psychology. Nature, 540(7631), 151–152.BakerM. (2016). Stat-checking software stirs up psychology. , 540(7631), 151–152.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PloS one, 5(12), e14331.BornmannL.MutzR.DanielH. D. (2010). A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. , 5(12), e14331.Search in Google Scholar
Buriak, J. M., Hersam, M. C., & Kamat, P. V. (2023). Can ChatGPT and Other AI Bots Serve as Peer Reviewers? ACS Energy Letters, 9, 191–192.BuriakJ. M.HersamM. C.KamatP. V. (2023). Can ChatGPT and Other AI Bots Serve as Peer Reviewers?, 9, 191–192.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, S. W., Chang, C. W., Chang, W. J., Wang, H. W., Liang, C. S., Kishimoto, T., & Su, K. P. (2023). The now and future of ChatGPT and GPT in psychiatry. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 77(11), 592–596.ChengS. W.ChangC. W.ChangW. J.WangH. W.LiangC. S.KishimotoT.SuK. P. (2023). The now and future of ChatGPT and GPT in psychiatry. , 77(11), 592–596.Search in Google Scholar
Feng, Y., Vanam, S., Cherukupally, M., Zheng, W., Qiu, M., & Chen, H. (2023, June). Investigating code generation performance of ChatGPT with crowdsourcing social data. In 2023 IEEE 47th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (pp. 876–885). IEEE.FengY.VanamS.CherukupallyM.ZhengW.QiuM.ChenH. (2023, June). Investigating code generation performance of ChatGPT with crowdsourcing social data. (pp. 876–885). IEEE.Search in Google Scholar
Flanagin, A., Kendall-Taylor, J., & Bibbins-Domingo, K. (2023). Guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors on use of AI, language models, and chatbots. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.12500.FlanaginA.Kendall-TaylorJ.Bibbins-DomingoK. (2023). Guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors on use of AI, language models, and chatbots. . https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.12500.Search in Google Scholar
Garcia, M. B. (2024). Using AI tools in writing peer review reports: should academic journals embrace the use of ChatGPT? Annals of biomedical engineering, 52, 139–140.GarciaM. B. (2024). Using AI tools in writing peer review reports: should academic journals embrace the use of ChatGPT?, 52, 139–140.Search in Google Scholar
Gov.uk (2023). Guidance: Exceptions to copyright. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright.Gov.uk (2023). . https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright.Search in Google Scholar
Hosseini, M., & Horbach, S. P. (2023). Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 8(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5.HosseiniM.HorbachS. P. (2023). Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review. , 8(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research, 13(4), 1148.HuangJ.TanM. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. , 13(4), 1148.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, D., Goodman, R., Patrinely, J., Stone, C., Zimmerman, E., Donald, R., … & Wheless, L. (2023). Assessing the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated medical responses: an evaluation of the Chat-GPT model. Research square. rs.3.rs-2566942. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2566942/v1.JohnsonD.GoodmanR.PatrinelyJ.StoneC.ZimmermanE.DonaldR.WhelessL. (2023). Assessing the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated medical responses: an evaluation of the Chat-GPT model. . rs.3.rs-2566942. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2566942/v1.Search in Google Scholar
Kocoń, J., Cichecki, I., Kaszyca, O., Kochanek, M., Szydło, D., Baran, J., & Kazienko, P. (2023). ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none. Information Fusion, 101861.KocońJ.CicheckiI.KaszycaO.KochanekM.SzydłoD.BaranJ.KazienkoP. (2023). ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none. , 101861.Search in Google Scholar
Langfeldt, L., Nedeva, M., Sörlin, S., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Co-existing notions of research quality: A framework to study context-specific understandings of good research. Minerva, 58(1), 115–137.LangfeldtL.NedevaM.SörlinS.ThomasD. A. (2020). Co-existing notions of research quality: A framework to study context-specific understandings of good research. , 58(1), 115–137.Search in Google Scholar
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D., Yang, X., & Zou, J. (2023). Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01783LiangW.ZhangY.CaoH.WangB.DingD.YangX.ZouJ. (2023). Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. Search in Google Scholar
Memon, A. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean medical science, 35(27), https://synapse.koreamed.org/articles/1146064.MemonA. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. , 35(27), https://synapse.koreamed.org/articles/1146064.Search in Google Scholar
Mollaki, V. (2024). Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies. Research Ethics, 17470161231224552.MollakiV. (2024). Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies. , 17470161231224552.Search in Google Scholar
Nazir, A., & Wang, Z. (2023). A Comprehensive Survey of ChatGPT: Advancements, Applications, Prospects, and Challenges. Meta-radiology, 100022.NazirA.WangZ. (2023). A Comprehensive Survey of ChatGPT: Advancements, Applications, Prospects, and Challenges. , 100022.Search in Google Scholar
OpenAI (2023). GPT-4 technical report. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774OpenAI (2023). . https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774Search in Google Scholar
Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2024). Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis. F1000Research, 12, 1398.PerkinsM.RoeJ. (2024). Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis. , 12, 1398.Search in Google Scholar
REF (2019a). Guidance on submissions (2019/01). https://archive.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/guidance-on-submissions-201901/REF (2019a). . https://archive.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/guidance-on-submissions-201901/Search in Google Scholar
REF (2019b). Panel criteria and working methods (2019/02). https://archive.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/panel-criteria-and-working-methods-201902/REF (2019b). . https://archive.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/panel-criteria-and-working-methods-201902/Search in Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–6.SivertsenG. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. , 3(1), 1–6.Search in Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Wilson, P., Makita, M., Abdoli, M., Stuart, E., Levitt, J. & Cancellieri, M. (2023a). Predicting article quality scores with machine learning: The UK Research Excellence Framework. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(2), 547–573.ThelwallM.KoushaK.WilsonP.MakitaM.AbdoliM.StuartE.LevittJ.CancellieriM. (2023a). Predicting article quality scores with machine learning: The UK Research Excellence Framework. , 4(2), 547–573.Search in Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Abdoli, M., Wilson, P. & Levitt, J. (2023b). Does the perceived quality of interdisciplinary research vary between fields? Journal of Documentation, 79(6), 1514–1531. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2023-0012ThelwallM.KoushaK.StuartE.MakitaM.AbdoliM.WilsonP.LevittJ. (2023b). Does the perceived quality of interdisciplinary research vary between fields?, 79(6), 1514–1531. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2023-0012Search in Google Scholar
Wei, X., Cui, X., Cheng, N., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Huang, S., & Han, W. (2023). Zero-shot information extraction via chatting with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10205.WeiX.CuiX.ChengN.WangX.ZhangX.HuangS.HanW. (2023). Zero-shot information extraction via chatting with chatgpt. .Search in Google Scholar
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., (2015). The metric tide. Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management.WilsdonJ.AllenL.BelfioreE.CampbellP.CurryS.HillS. (2015). The metric tide. .Search in Google Scholar
Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q. L., & Tang, Y. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136.WuT.HeS.LiuJ.SunS.LiuK.HanQ. L.TangY. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. , 10(5), 1122–1136.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Reviewer assignment algorithms for peer review automation: A survey. Information Processing & Management, 59(5), 103028.ZhaoX.ZhangY. (2022). Reviewer assignment algorithms for peer review automation: A survey. , 59(5), 103028.Search in Google Scholar