Springer Nature the largest scientific publisher does not allow ChatGPT
Software

Springer Nature, the largest scientific publisher, does not allow ChatGPT to be credited as the author of articles

Springer Nature, the world’s largest scientific publisher, has clarified its position on using advanced software tools to write language models like ChatGPT. The company announced this week that such software cannot be credited as the author of articles appearing in thousands of the publisher’s magazines.

    Image source: Pixabay

Image source: Pixabay

At the same time, Springer Nature noted that the company is not opposed to the use of AI algorithms to generate ideas or assist in writing when such material is fully disclosed by the author. “We felt the need to clarify our position: for our writers, our editors, and ourselves. The new generation of language models like ChatGPT has really blown up the community, which is rightly excited and toying with them, but also cheating on them in a way that is beyond how they can currently be actually applied.”– said Magdalena Skipper, Editor-in-Chief of Nature.

Previously, ChatGPT and some other language models were named as authors in a small number of published articles, including academic papers. However, the nature and extent of the contribution of AI algorithms to the creation of publications differs from case to case. The reaction from the scientific community to articles citing ChatGPT as author has been overwhelmingly negative.

The main argument against the attribution of authorship to AI algorithms is that the software is simply not able to fulfill the necessary obligations. “When we think of authorship of scientific articles and research papers, we don’t just think of writing them. There are responsibilities beyond publishing, and of course AI tools are currently incapable of taking on those responsibilities.”says captain.

Of course, this means that the software cannot be held responsible for any releases, cannot claim intellectual property rights in their work, and cannot correspond with other scientists and the press to discuss their work and answer questions that arise.

“Our policy on this matter is very clear: we do not prohibit their use as a writing tool. The main thing is to be clear about how the article will be created and what software will be used. We need transparency as this is at the heart of how scientific materials should be produced and disseminated <…> We as a community need to focus on the positive aspects of use and potential, and then regulate and curb potential abuse. I’m optimistic and think we can do it.”Skipper closed.

About the author

Robbie Elmers

Robbie Elmers is a staff writer for Tech News Space, covering software, applications and services.

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment