Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation

被引：11

作者：

Dadkhah, Mehdi ^{[1
,2
]}

Oermann, Marilyn H. ^{[3
]}

Hegedus, Mihaly ^{[4
]}

Raman, Raghu ^{[5
]}

David, Lorant Denes ^{[6
,7
]}

机构：

[1] Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Sch Engn, Amritapuri, Kerala, India

[2] Entekhab Ind Grp, SnowaTec Technol Ctr & Innovat Factory, Technol Forecasting Dept, Esfahan, Iran

[3] Duke Univ, Sch Nursing, Durham, NC USA

[4] Tomor Pal Coll, Hungaryf Hungarian Auditors, Budapest, Hungary

[5] Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Sch Business, Amritapuri, Kerala, India

[6] John von Neumann Univ, Fac Econ & Business, Kecskemet, Hungary

[7] Hungarian Univ Agr & Life Sci, Inst Rural Dev & Sustainable Econ, Godollo, Hungary

来源：

ADVANCED PHARMACEUTICAL BULLETIN | 2024年 / 14卷 / 01期

关键词：

Hijacked journals; ChatGPT; Artificial intelligence; Language models; Predatory journals; Research ethics; HIJACKED JOURNALS; PREDATORY JOURNALS; INTEGRITY; DATABASES; THREATS;

D O I：

10.34172/apb.2024.020

中图分类号：

R9 [药学];

学科分类号：

1007 ;

摘要：

Purpose: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality. Methods: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed. Results: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals. Conclusion: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals.

引用

页码：1 / 4

页数：4

共 39 条

[31] Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing [J].

Liebrenz, Michael ;

Schleifer, Roman ;

Buadze, Anna ;

Bhugra, Dinesh ;

Smith, Alexander .

LANCET DIGITAL HEALTH, 2023, 5 (03) :E105-E106

[32]

Lund Brady D., 2023, Library Hi Tech News, P26, DOI 10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009

[33] Debate: Publish or perish? How legal regulations affect scholars' publishing strategies and the spending of public funds by universities [J].

Musial-Karg, Magdalena ;

Zamecki, Lukasz ;

Rak, Joanna .

PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT, 2023, 43 (08) :779-780

[34] Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals [J].

Nejadghanbar, Hassan ;

Hu, Guangwei .

LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2022, 35 (04) :574-584

[35] Integrity of Databases for Literature Searches in Nursing Avoiding Predatory Journals [J].

Oermann, Marilyn H. ;

Wrigley, Jordan ;

Nicoll, Leslie H. ;

Ledbetter, Leila S. ;

Carter-Templeton, Heather ;

Edie, Alison H. .

ADVANCES IN NURSING SCIENCE, 2021, 44 (02) :102-110

[36]

Shirokov S. A., 2020, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, V1694, DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1694/1/012034

[37]

Shrestha J., 2021, J AGR NATURAL RESOUR, V4, P1, DOI [https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v4i2.33640, DOI 10.3126/JANR.V4I2.33640]

[38] The ChatGPT Storm and What Faculty Can Do [J].

Sun, Grace H. ;

Hoelscher, Stephanie H. .

NURSE EDUCATOR, 2023, 48 (03) :119-124

[39] What does ChatGPT advise about predatory publishing? [J].

Tsigaris, Panagiotis ;

Kendall, Graham ;

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. .

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL NURSING, 2023, 49 :188-189

← 1 2 3 4 →