Home⇛Journal of Education, Management, and Development Studies⇛vol. 3 no. 1 (2023)

ChatGPT and Academic Research: A Review and Recommendations Based on Practical Examples

Md. Mizanur Rahman | Harold Jan Terano | Md Nafizur Rahman | Aidin Salamzadeh | Md. Saidur Rahaman

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

In the academic world, academicians, researchers, and students have already employed Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT to complete their various academic and non-academic tasks, including essay writing, different formal and informal speech writing, summarising literature, and generating ideas. However, yet, it is a controversial issue to use ChatGPT in academic research. Recently, its impact on academic research and publication has been scrutinized. The fundamental objective of this study is to highlight the application of ChatGPT in academic research by demonstrating a practical example with some recommendations. Data for this study was gathered using published articles, websites, blogs, and visual and numerical artefacts. We have analyzed, synthesized, and described our gathered data using an "introductory literature review." The findings revealed that for the initial idea generation for academic scientific research, ChatGPT could be an effective tool. However, in the case of literature synthesis, citations, problem statements, research gaps, and data analysis, the researchers might encounter some challenges. Therefore, in these cases, researchers must be cautious about using ChatGPT in academic research. Considering the potential applications and consequences of ChatGPT, it is a must for the academic and scientific community to establish the necessary guidelines for the appropriate use of LLMs, especially ChatGPT, in research and publishing.



References:

  1. Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022). OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4308687
  2. Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. SAGE.
  3. Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. (2023). ChatGPT for (Finance) research: The Bananarama Conjecture. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662
  4. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  5. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1994). Using research syntheses to plan future research. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 485–500). Russell Sage Foundation.
  6. Else, H. (2023). Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature, 613(7944), 423–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7
  7. Elsevier. (2023). The Use of AI and AI-assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics
  8. Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.23.521610
  9. Gordijn, B., & Have, H. ten. (2023). ChatGPT: evolution or revolution? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 26(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0
  10. Grimaldi, G., & Ehrler, B. (2023). AI et al.: Machines Are About to Change Scientific Publishing Forever. ACS Energy Letters, 8(1), 878–880. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c02828
  11. Hutson, M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611(7934), 192–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w
  12. Liebrenz, M., Schleifer, R., Buadze, A., Bhugra, D., & Smith, A. (2023). Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. The Lancet Digital Health, 5(3), e105–e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00019-5
  13. M Alshater, M. (2022). Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Academic Performance: A Case Study of ChatGPT. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312358
  14. McMaster LibGuides at McMaster University. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/guidetoresources
  15. O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT. (2023). Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse? Nurse Education in Practice, 66, 103537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537
  16. Rahaman, Md. S., Ahsan, M. M. T., Anjum, N., Rahman, Md. M., & Rahman, M. N. (2023). The AI Race is on! Google’s Bard and Openai’s Chatgpt Head to Head: An Opinion Article. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4351785
  17. Sankaran, V. (2023). Scientific journals ban ChatGPT use by researchers to write studies. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/chatgpt-ai-journals-ban-author-b2270334.html
  18. Spring Nature. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613(7945), 612–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
  19. Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
  20. Taylor & Francis. (2023). Taylor & Francis Clarifies the Responsible use of AI Tools in Academic Content Creation. Taylor & Francis. https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/taylor-francis-clarifies-the-responsible-use-of-ai-tools-in-academic-content-creation/
  21. Transformer, C. G. P., & Zhavoronkov, A. (2022). Rapamycin in the context of Pascal’s Wager: generative pre-trained transformer perspective. Oncoscience, 9, 82–84. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncoscience.571
  22. Van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., Van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
  23. Ventresca, M. J., & Mohr, J. W. (2017). Archival Research Methods. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (pp. 805–828). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164061.ch35
  24. Vogt, P. W., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to Use What Research Design. Guilford Press. https://books.google.com.bd/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iDELMeGcIgAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Vogt,+W.+P.,+Gardner,+D.+C.,++Haeffele,+L.+M.+When+to+use+what+research+design.+%09Guilford+Press,+2012.+&ots=7_GOVKvlay&sig=M-mbGj_MFZoaBcJ9R1M9FeSwm14&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 


Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic