Subscribe to RSS
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60f12/60f1207d64e709348d01b6a01c0352d16ea3240a" alt=""
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1800801
Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Manuscript Writing: Tips and Traps
Funding None.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/53e2a/53e2afa45a65317f2aa0aaf7b7dd7968a901e53d" alt=""
Abstract
It is being increasingly recognized that the strategic use of artificial intelligence (AI) can catalyze the process of manuscript writing. However, it is imperative that we recognize the hidden biases, pitfalls, and disadvantages of relying solely on AI, such as accuracy concerns and the potential erosion of nuanced human insight. With an emphasis on crafting effective prompts and inputs, this article reveals how to navigate the labyrinth of AI capabilities to create a good-quality manuscript. It also addresses the evolving guidelines from various publishers, shedding light on how to “leverage the digital genie” responsibly and ethically. We further explore how and which AI tools can be harnessed for literature reviews, executing statistical analyses, and polishing the language of the manuscript. Providing practical strategies for maximizing AI's benefits, this article underscores the indispensable value of human creativity and critical thinking, stressing that while AI can “streamline the mundane,” the author's insight remains vital for profound intellectual contributions.
Keywords
artificial intelligence - generative AI - large language model - manuscript - scientific manuscriptEthical Approval
The study was approved by the ethical review committee of our institute.
Publication History
Article published online:
09 January 2025
© 2025. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus 2023; 15 (02) e35179
- 2 Kore A, Abbasi Bavil E, Subasri V. et al. Empirical data drift detection experiments on real-world medical imaging data. Nat Commun 2024; 15 (01) 1887
- 3 Elali FR, Rachid LN. AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community. Patterns (N Y) 2023; 4 (03) 100706
- 4 Julius AI. Julius AI (Version 3.0) [Diagram generation software]. Julius AI Inc. Accessed September 6, 2024 at: https://www.juliusai.com
- 5 Fink A. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA:: Sage Publications;; 2010: 3-5
- 6 Poojary SA, Bagadia JD. Reviewing literature for research: doing it the right way. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS 2014; 35 (02) 85-91
- 7 Kacena MA, Plotkin LI, Fehrenbacher JC. The use of artificial intelligence in writing scientific review articles. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2024; 22 (01) 115-121
- 8 Mozelius P, Humble N. On the use of generative AI for literature reviews: an exploration of tools and techniques. J AI Res 2024; 15 (03) 123-145
- 9 Open AI. . ChatGPT (GPT-4). Accessed September 6, 2024 at: https://www.openai.com/chatgpt
- 10 Microsoft. . Microsoft Copilot (Microsoft 365, Version 2024). Accessed September 6, 2024 at: https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/copilot
- 11 Reichenpfader D, Müller H, Denecke K. A scoping review of large language model based approaches for information extraction from radiology reports. NPJ Digit Med 2024; 7 (01) 222
- 12 Fink MA, Bischoff A, Fink CA. et al. Potential of ChatGPT and GPT-4 for data mining of free-text CT reports on lung cancer. Radiology 2023; 308 (03) e231362
- 13 Le Guellec B, Lefèvre A, Geay C. et al. Performance of an open-source large language model in extracting information from free-text radiology reports. Radiol Artif Intell 2024; 6 (04) e230364
- 14 Hu D, Liu B, Zhu X, Lu X, Wu N. Zero-shot information extraction from radiological reports using ChatGPT. Int J Med Inform 2024; 183: 105321
- 15 Faes L, Sim DA, van Smeden M, Held U, Bossuyt PM, Bachmann LM. Artificial intelligence and statistics: just the old wine in new wineskins?. Front Digit Health 2022; 4: 833912
- 16 Ordak M. ChatGPT's skills in statistical analysis using the example of allergology: do we have reason for concern?. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11 (18) 2554
- 17 Ahn S. Data science through natural language with ChatGPT's Code Interpreter. Transl Clin Pharmacol 2024; 32 (02) 73-82
- 18 Gewirtz D. How to use ChatGPT to make charts and tables with advanced data analysis. ZDNET. 2024 . Accessed August 20, 2024 at: https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-chatgpt-to-make-charts-and-tables-with-advanced-data-analysis/
- 19 Smeds MR, Mendes B, O'Banion LA, Shalhub S. Exploring the pros and cons of using artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation for scientific journals. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech 2023; 9 (02) 101163
- 20 Brożek B, Furman M, Jakubiec M. et al. The black box problem revisited: Real and imaginary challenges for automated legal decision making. Artif Intell Law 2024; 32: 427-440
- 21 Dinerstein v. Google. No. 1:19-cv-04311. 2019.
- 22 Smith J, Johnson L. Ethical concerns in AI: lessons from Dinerstein v. Google. J Tech Ethics 2024; 12 (02) 115-128
- 23 Dave A, Smith J, Lee R. et al. Ethical guidelines for AI systems: human oversight, technical reliability, privacy, and accountability. J AI Ethics 2023; 5 (04) 321-336
- 24 Meszaros Z, Toth I, Kovacs P. et al. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its impact on handling personal health data in automated decision-making contexts. Health Data Law 2022; 10 (02) 45-59
- 25 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2023 . Accessed September 6, 2024 at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
- 26 Zielinski A, Patel R, Meyer J. et al. The World Association of Medical Editors' stance on AI authorship: Emphasizing human responsibility in ensuring AI content accuracy. Med Educ 2023; 40 (02) 75-82
- 27 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. (n.d.). AI publishing guidelines. UT Southwestern Medical Center. Accessed December 2, 2024 at: https://utsouthwestern.libguides.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-publishing-guidelines
- 28 Pinto DS, Noronha SM, Saigal G, Quencer RM. Comparison of an AI-generated case report with a human-written case report: practical considerations for AI-assisted medical writing. Cureus 2024; 16 (05) e60461
- 29 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) for Drug Development. 2024 . Accessed November 14, 2024 at: https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/digital-health-technologies-dhts-drug-development
- 30 The New Republic. The great A.I. hallucinations. 2023 . Accessed November 14, 2024 at: https://newrepublic.com/article/172454/great-ai-hallucination-chatgpt
- 31 Doyal AS, Sender D, Nanda M, Serrano RA. ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in medical writing: concerns and ethical considerations. Cureus 2023; 15 (08) e43292
- 32 Lau W, Cerf VG, Enriquez J. et al. Protecting scientific integrity in an age of generative AI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2024; 121 (22) e2407886121
- 33 Dwivedi YK, Kshetri N, Hughes L. et al. Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage 2023; 71: 102642
- 34 Smith J, Johnson A, Lee B. et al. Best practices for crafting effective prompts and inputs for AI in manuscript writing. J AI Writing 2024; 8 (02) 150-162