Artificial Intelligence Tools for Scientific Writing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

From Top Italian Scientists Journal
Published
January 4, 2025
Title
Artificial Intelligence Tools for Scientific Writing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Authors
Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, Anna Cazzaro, Elisa Cobalchin, Diletta D’Auria, Giovanni Ardizzone, Salvatore Giordano, Ulvi Mirzoyev, Petar M Seferovic, Gani Bajraktari, Denisa Muraru.
DOI
10.62684/BXVS8359
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence; ChatGPT; Medical writing; Peer review; Research; Science; Scientific writing.
Downloads
Download PDF
Download PDF

Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai(a,b), Anna Cazzaro(a), Elisa Cobalchin(a), Diletta D’Auria(a), Giovanni Ardizzone(a), Salvatore Giordano(c), Ulvi Mirzoyev(d), Petar M Seferovic(e), Gani Bajraktari(f,g,h), Denisa Muraru(i,j)

(a) Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy. giuseppe.biondizoccai@uniroma1.it

(b) Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Cotignola, Italy.

(c) Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, "Magna Graecia" University, Catanzaro, Italy. sasigiordano@gmail.com

(d) Medical Center of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, Baku, Azerbaijan. ulvi.mirzoyev@adam.az

(e) Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia. seferovic.petar@gmail.com

(f) Clinic of Rheumatology, University Clinical Centre of Kosova, Prishtina, Kosova. ganibajraktari@gmail.com

(g) Clinic of Cardiology, University Clinical Centre of Kosova, Prishtina, Kosovo.

(h) Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

(i) Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. denisa.muraru@gmail.com

(j) Department of Cardiology, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.


Correspondence to: Prof. Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Corso della Repubblica 74, 04100 Latina, Italy. Email: giuseppe.biondizoccai@uniroma1.it

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the workflow of scholarly writing, including scientific and medical writing, offers transformative advantages while raising critical ethical and practical concerns. Among the pros, AI substantially enhances efficiency by automating several time-consuming tasks such as literature review, data synthesis and text editing. In particular, tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, and SciSpace Copilot remarkably empower researchers when they draft, refine, and format manuscripts, increasing precision and speed. In addition, AI tools may foster inclusivity by assisting non-native English speakers with seamless translations and also enabling interdisciplinary collaboration, thereby hopefully democratizing access and boosting scientific communication and cooperation. However, the rapid adoption of novel AI tools brings significant challenges. First, there is a distinct risk of perpetuating biases in training datasets, and other key issues include ambiguity in authorship accountability and the potential erosion of critical thinking skills. In addition, AI tools could be purposefully misused to generate mock datasets and fraudulent papers (e.g. by paper mills), and this clearly poses a threat to academic integrity. This challenge is all too pressing given that traditional plagiarism detection tools often fall short against sophisticated AI-generated content. We hereby explore the pros and cons of AI on medical writing, poignantly leveraging Sergio Leone’s The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly movie as a metaphor. By providing general concepts as well as focusing on several key AI tools, we are hopeful this overview may prove useful to anyone wishing to conscientiously adopt AI tools for scientific writing. In addition, we make a compelling case for transparent guidelines, robust and freely available detection mechanisms, and ongoing critical oversight to ensure AI will be able to serve as a catalyst for innovation and dissemination without compromising the credibility of scholarly endeavors.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai has consulted for Abiomed, Advanced Nanotherapies, Aleph, Amarin, Balmed, Cardionovum, Crannmedical, Endocore Lab, Eukon, Guidotti, Innovheart, Meditrial, Menarini, Microport, Opsens Medical, Terumo, and Translumina, outside the present work. Denisa Muraru reports research support and speakers' fees from GE Healthcare and Philips Medical Systems, outside the present work. All other authors report no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

Research leading to this report has received funding from the European Union - NextGenerationEU, through the Italian Ministry of University and Research, under PNRR - M4C2-I1.3 Project PE_00000019 "HEAL ITALIA" to Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai CUP B53C22004000006 Sapienza University of Rome. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them. This manuscript was based on analysis conducted and was drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT 4 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), in keeping with established best practices (Biondi-Zoccai G, editor. ChatGPT for Medical Research. Torino: Edizioni Minerva Medica; 2024). The final content, including all conclusions and opinions, has been thoroughly revised, edited, and approved by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the work and retain full credit for all intellectual contributions. Compliance with ethical standards and guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in research has been ensured.

References

  1. Altmäe S, Sola-Leyva A, Salumets A. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe? Reprod Biomed Online 2023;47:3-9.
  2. Cottam R, Vounckx R. Intelligence: Natural, artificial, or what? Biosystems 2024;246:105343.
  3. Liu S, Russo C, Suero Molina E, Di Ieva A. Artificial Intelligence Methods. Adv Exp Med Biol 2024;1462:21-38.
  4. Singh S, Kumar R, Maharshi V, Singh PK, Kumari V, Tiwari M, Harsha D. Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Medical Manuscript Composition: Applications and Ethical Considerations. Cureus 2024;16:e71744.
  5. Chemaya N, Martin D. Perceptions and detection of AI use in manuscript preparation for academic journals. PLoS One 2024;19:e0304807.
  6. Biondi-Zoccai G, editor. ChatGPT for Medical Research. Torino: Edizioni Minerva Medica; 2024
  7. Ray PP. Generative AI: a new dawn in cardiovascular study and research. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023;39:654-655.
  8. Johnson O. ChatGPT For Fiction Writing: How to Make Money from Fiction the AI Way. 2023. Available at: https://www.amazon.com/ChatGPT-Fiction-Writing-Make-Money/dp/B0CGX12WCH (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  9. Al-Kfairy M, Mustafa D, Kshetri N, Insiew M, Alfandi O. Ethical Challenges and Solutions of Generative AI: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Informatics 2024;11:58.
  10. Liverpool L. AI intensifies fight against 'paper mills' that churn out fake research. Nature 2023;618:222-223.
  11. Könneker C. The Challenge of Science Communication in the Age of AI. Stanford Social Innovation Review 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48558/5JNC-WA59 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  12. Elicit. Available at: https://cail.unc.edu/2024/11/14/elicit-an-ai-tool-for-literature-reviews/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  13. ResearchRabbit. Available at: https://www.researchrabbit.ai/reviews (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  14. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good,_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  15. Ramoni D, Sgura C, Liberale L, Montecucco F, Ioannidis JPA, Carbone F. Artificial intelligence in scientific medical writing: Legitimate and deceptive uses and ethical concerns. Eur J Intern Med 2024;127:31-35.
  16. Lin Z. Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI. arXiv 2310.17143
  17. Shabanov I. The Effortless Academic: Litmaps vs ResearchRabbit vs Connected Papers – The best Literature Review Tool in 2025. Available at: https://effortlessacademic.com/litmaps-vs-researchrabbit-vs-connected-papers-the-best-literature-review-tool-in-2025/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  18. SciSpace Copilot. Available at: https://scispace.com/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  19. Sebo P, de Lucia S. Performance of machine translators in translating French medical research abstracts to English: A comparative study of DeepL, Google Translate, and CUBBITT. PLoS One 2024;19:e0297183.
  20. Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023 Feb 25;27(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2. Erratum in: Crit Care 2023;27:99.
  21. Bilal M. Tutorial on Google NotebookLM. Available at: https://www.threads.net/@mushtaqbilalphd/post/C-W-agKhjig (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  22. OtterAI. Available at: https://get.otter.ai/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  23. BioRender. Available at: https://www.biorender.com/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  24. Lind V. Consensus vs Scite AI: Battle of Academic Research Assistants. Available at: https://aipure.ai/articles/consensus-vs-scite-ai-battle-of-academic-research-assistants (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  25. Zul M. 22 Useful AI Tools for Academic Writing. Available at: https://publishingstate.com/22-useful-ai-tools-for-academic-writing/2024/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  26. Markowitz DM. From Complexity to Clarity: How AI Enhances Perceptions of Scientists and the Public's Understanding of Science. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00706 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  27. Schmidt PG, Amnon J. Meir AJ. Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy? Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.06981 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  28. Claude. Available at: https://claude.ai/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  29. Teperikidis E, Boulmpou A, Papadopoulos C. Prompting ChatGPT to perform an umbrella review. Acta Cardiol 2024;79:403-404.
  30. Teperikidis L, Boulmpou A, Papadopoulos C, Biondi-Zoccai G. Using ChatGPT to perform a systematic review: a tutorial. Minerva Cardiol Angiol 2024;72:547-567.
  31. Teperikidis L, Karakasis P, Patoulias D, Boulmpou A, Kouzoukas D; AIMES – AI for Meta-Analysis and Evidence Synthesis. Validating ChatGPT's role in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A case study on GLP-1 receptor agonists and all-cause mortality. Eur J Intern Med 2024 Nov 28:S0953-6205(24)00436-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2024.10.017. Epub ahead of print.
  32. Bhinder B, Gilvary C, Madhukar NS, Elemento O. Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Research and Precision Medicine. Cancer Discov 2021;11:900-915.
  33. Formosa P, Bankin, S, Matulionyte R, Ghasemi O. Can ChatGPT be an author? Generative AI creative writing assistance and perceptions of authorship, creatorship, responsibility, and disclosure. AI & Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02081-0 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  34. Bozkurt A. GenAI et al.: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI. Available at: https://openpraxis.org/articles/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  35. Lee M. Human-AI Collaborative Taxonomy Construction: A Case Study in Profession-Specific Writing Assistants. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18675 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  36. Elkhatat AM, Elsaid K, Almeer S. Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. Int J Educ Integr 2023;19:17.
  37. Huff C. Available at: https://www.apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/ai-research-writing (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  38. Novelli C, Taddeo M, Floridi L. Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works. AI & Society 2024;39:1871-1882.
  39. Guleria A, Krishan K, Sharma V, Kanchan T. ChatGPT: ethical concerns and challenges in academics and research. J Infect Dev Ctries 2023;17:1292-1299
  40. Májovský M, Černý M, Kasal M, Komarc M, Netuka D. Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora's Box Has Been Opened. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e46924.
  41. Weber-Wulff D, Anohina-Naumeca A, Bjelobaba S, Foltýnek T, Guerrero-Dib J, Popoola O, Šigut P, Waddington L. Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Text. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15666 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  42. Rosenbacke R, Melhus Å, McKee M, Stuckler D. How Explainable Artificial Intelligence Can Increase or Decrease Clinicians' Trust in AI Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review. JMIR AI 2024;3:e53207.
  43. Jenkins R, Lin P. AI-Assisted Authorship: How to Assign Credit in Synthetic Scholarship. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  44. de Almeida PGR, dos Santos CD, Farias JS. Artificial Intelligence Regulation: a framework for governance. Ethics Inf Technol 2021;23:505-525.
  45. Fabio RA, Plebe A, Suriano R. AI-based chatbot interactions and critical thinking skills: an exploratory study. Curr Psychol 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06795-8 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  46. Kwon D. AI-generated images threaten science — here’s how researchers hope to spot them. Nature 2024. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03542-8 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  47. Medpalm. Available at: https://sites.research.google/med-palm/ (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  48. Hamida SU, Chowdhury MJM, Chakraborty NR, Biswas K, Sami SK. Exploring the Landscape of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Review of Techniques and Applications. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 2024;8:149.
  49. Lin, Z. Beyond principlism: practical strategies for ethical AI use in research practices. AI Ethics 2024 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00585-5 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
  50. Resnik, D.B., Hosseini, M. The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool. AI Ethics 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8 (last accessed on December 31, 2024).
Retrieved from ‘https://journal.topitalianscientists.org/index.php?title=Artificial_Intelligence_Tools_for_Scientific_Writing_The_Good_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly&oldid=1736’