Transparency in research: An analysis of ChatGPT usage acknowledgment by authors across disciplines and geographies

This investigation systematically reviews the recognition of generative AI tools, particularly ChatGPT, in scholarly literature. Utilizing 1,226 publications from the Dimensions database, ranging from November 2022 to July 2023, the research scrutinizes temporal trends and distribution across disciplines and regions. U.S.-based authors lead in acknowledgments, with notable contributions from China and India. Predominantly, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, as well as Information and Computing Sciences, are engaging with these AI tools. Publications like "The Lancet Digital Health" and platforms such as "bioRxiv" are recurrent venues for such acknowledgments, highlighting AI's growing impact on research dissemination. The analysis is confined to the Dimensions database, thus potentially overlooking other sources and grey literature. Additionally, the study abstains from examining the acknowledgments' quality or ethical considerations. Findings are beneficial for stakeholders, providing a basis for policy and scholarly discourse on ethical AI use in academia. This study represents the inaugural comprehensive empirical assessment of AI acknowledgment patterns in academic contexts, addressing a previously unexplored aspect of scholarly communication.

'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings

This article analyzes how a formal text (the Ethics Review Form) available at National Health Service Research Ethics Committees (NHSRECs) in the United Kingdom was used in meetings. Derived from the work of Dorothy Smith on incorporating texts into institutional ethnography (IE), it proposes the concept of "text work" as a way into understanding more about decision-making in ethics review and describes the extent to which this formal text shaped and influenced review work. The research study used observations of committee meetings, field-notes and interviews to produce an ethnographic mapping of Research Ethics Committees' (RECs) work. This article draws on one aspect of the research which was the process of isolating a particular, ubiquitous text and analyzing how it worked and was worked on in the meetings. The analysis contributes to contemporary discussion offering an alternative to ongoing debates about idealized ways of conducting ethics review. Finally, some tentative suggestions are made about improving training, based on and starting from the work which reviewers undertake.