Andy Stapleton
Don't use AI for research until you've watched this…NEW Rules
In this video, I explore the critical topic of using AI for research and what researchers need to know before incorporating AI tools into their workflow.
▼ ▽ Sign up for my FREE newsletter
Join 21,000+ email subscribers receiving the free tools and academic tips directly from me:
▼ ▽ MY TOP SELLING COURSE ▼ ▽
▶ Become a Master Academic Writer With AI using my course: https://academy.academiainsider.com/courses/ai-writing-course
With AI becoming more common in academic writing, it’s essential to understand the specific guidelines and ethical boundaries that different journals have set for using AI in research papers. Many believe AI for paper writing can make the process easier, but there are serious rules and consequences that come with using AI tools.
For example, did you know that journals like Elsevier and Wiley now require authors to disclose whether they’ve used AI for research? This includes tools like ChatGPT, which can be tempting to use when writing or editing a research paper. However, these journals are clear about the limits—you can’t rely on AI to generate your results or manipulate your data, and it’s important to understand what’s allowed and what’s not. AI for research paper writing can assist in improving language and readability, but crossing certain lines, like using AI to create or alter images, is strictly forbidden.
In addition, many journals now ask researchers to detail how they’ve used AI tools for research paper writing, from the specific AI models they used (like GPT-4) to the exact ways they’ve integrated these tools into their research process. It’s not just about transparency, but also about maintaining the credibility of academic research.
As AI tools become more advanced, they offer a range of features that can help researchers streamline tasks like data analysis and language editing. However, there’s a fine line between using AI as a helpful assistant and relying on it too heavily. For instance, while using AI tools for research paper editing, such as fixing grammar or improving the structure of your text, is generally accepted, allowing AI to alter your research findings or conclusions is considered unethical.
So, before you dive into using AI for research or paper writing, it's crucial to understand the guidelines and ensure you're using these tools appropriately. These rules aren’t just minor details—they play a major role in ensuring that the research we produce remains accurate, honest, and credible.
…………………………………………
▼ ▽ TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Intro
00:40 First Rule
02:00 Original Research
03:01 Different Rules
04:04 Be Responsible
05:11 What Journals Say
06:20 Research Must Stay Credible
08:07 Outro
…………………………………………
▼ ▽ Socials for shorts and reels
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drandystapleton/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drandystapleton
don't use AI tools for research until you've watched these videos look at this all of these people have rules for using generative AI in their journals this is ele look at all this boring stuff this is Wy look at all of this stuff this is another one plus plus one here's all the stuff they want you to know about using AI this is all the stuff that Sage wants you to know nature group of people that's actually not too long that one but science look it's all there this one is Mega along all this stuff and you need to know how it relates to using AI in research and in this video we're going to go through all of the rules and the first one is the most important do you remember a time when people were like oh you shouldn't use AI it's cheating well they realize now that they like using AI so now they're like it's okay just here are the rules so the first thing you should know is that they want you to disclose whether or not you're using AI so the way you can do that is by putting it in acknowledgement section you can put it in um like a disclosure statement but essentially each Journal has their own way and this is what people are saying about it so in ele journals it says authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI assisted technology um and a statement will appear in the published work Wy author Services says if an author has used gen AI tool to develop any portion of manuscript it must be described transparently and in detail the detail is very important it's the type of tool you're using how you've used it as well as the large language model that you've used for example gp4 or clae anthropic those sort of things are very important and it says in the method section or in a disclosure within the acknowledgement section as applicable so some places want you to put it into the method section of writing that paper if you've used it for any sort of like process to do with your research but you can't use it for all of your research the next one is just as important one of the biggest rules is AI should not be used for original research now what does that mean they only want you to use AI tools for language stuff essentially they don't want you to alter images which we all know is not right not ethical you can't make up results and you shouldn't be using AI um to kind of like change the words or the outcome of your conclusions because that is clearly not your own work so here El s also says we do not permit the use of gen AI or AI sister tools to create or alter images in submitting manuscripts we've all been there we've got these little results and we're like oh if only that little smudge wasn't there or if only this was a little bit clearer don't use it for that only use it if you're submitting to a journal for language based things so we all know that you shouldn't fabricate results so don't use AI to fabricate results and it's one of the easiest ones to comply with I think I often get like questions like well I use this which probably is AI like uh grammarly or some other language tool but there are different rules for different journals this is what elsaa says it says um these Technologies should only be used to improve readability and the language of the work now that's really important because you can use it to make it more academic you can use it to make sure that your conclusions are clear that it's structured in the right way but what you can't do is say I've got this conclusion is there anything else I can say about it if you're adding to the knowledge no no no naughty naughty spank naughty but you can use it to change the language it's a fine line sometimes but those are the rules and then it says down here tools that are used to improve spelling grammar and general editing are not included in the scope of these guidelines so if you're using a tool like spell Checkers or grammarly you don't need to worry about putting it in there as an AI assisted tool it's only if if it really helps you sort of like formulate the language that you're going to use now listen up you this is all about making sure you are responsible for the language and the text that you are presenting as your own work so here plus one says all of the statements in the article reporting to all of those things represent the author's own ideas and so the use of AI tools and Technologies to fabricate or otherwise misrepresent primary research data is unacceptable that is your warning you need to be sure that you are comfortable and it truly represents your thoughts on the results or the conclusions you are presenting Wy goes a little bit further and says the author is fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the tour and for correctly referencing any supporting work on which that information depends so AI is this great like plausibility machine sometimes it gives you stuff that sounds so so plausible but in fact is made up so you need to make sure that you're referencing any bits of information just like you would if you using your meat brain and typing it out over caffeine fueled Fury I love it that all of the different journals have said this that chat GPT or any large language model does not constitute authorship so in nature they say large language model such as chat gp2 do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria and that's because they need to be able to be sort of like questioned and made accountable for the stuff they're putting in to the research paper so you should be able to um go to an author and say why did you do this justify to me why this is a thing and chat GPT can't do that because it doesn't have the intimate knowledge of your results of the background that you're trained in all of those things mean that it doesn't sort of like qualify as authorship merely a tool and El says authors should not not list Ai and AI assisted Technologies as an author or C Core author nor site AI as an author so there we are just don't put it as the top like you can't have Stapleton at Al you can't have chat GPT at Al no no no well I think we all know that right don't we yeah good and the last thing I think we need to know about using AI in research is the most important one in making sure that research stays credible now AI tools should not be used to evaluate someone else's ideas in peer review first of all uploading their information into chat GPT or a large language model could break confidentiality and that is a big no no we want to make sure that the peerreview process is as robust as possible if AI starts to get involved it means that people and experts aren't using their expertise to evaluate a peerreview paper because the peer part is very important in peer review the peer part is what makes it and if you're Outsourcing that it's no longer peer review it's AI review which probably isn't too far away but it's not there yet so don't use it to peer review papers this is what science has to say about it reviewers may not use AI technology in generating or writing their reviews because this could breach the confidentiality of the manuscript and Wy down here says gen IR tools should only be used on a limited basis in connection with peerreview so much stricter guidelines it can only be used by an editor or peer reviewer to improve the quality of the written feedback and this must be done transparently declared upon submission of the peerreview report to the manuscript handling editor so you can only use it to make sure that your ideas are communicated clearly in writing form you can't get your ideas from AI I think that makes sense all right now the last thing is look at this this is a PowerPoint presentation so I always put a little clap at the end well done Andy you did so great I hope you're clapping at home clap clap clap clap clap makes me feel good if you like this video go check out this one where I talk about using chat GPT to make research simple now you can also take the prompts and use these across other large language models but I think this one is a good place to start go check it out e
#Dont #research #youve #watched #this…NEW #Rules
source
Exceplent work, Sir. Big thank you + hand shake, for your delivery of very valuable information. If I may add, in my personal opinion likely shared by many is that the only way for any organization to optimally utilize AI is to develop it in house plus the necessary precautionary protection enabled 110%. This is not only to secure the company but its customers and there are MANY. Keep up the good work guys n galls
So work on self driving labs can not be published.
EduWriter is the best AI tool
Please make a video on how to use Turnitin plagiarism checker as a student. Thank you.
Your videos was very informative to me. Thanks Andy! My thought about generative AI would be to introduce the original source that tool used to generate content. That could make it largely accepted by publishers and academics.
Isn't it interesting that Academia want you to disclose Ai when used, but they don't care if a Ghost Writer insert their views into your published work. Equal playing field would be welcomed 🫢. Oops, did I just say that out loud 🥴.
These rules always feel like they are made by people that have never used ai. I asked Gemini for a synonym as opposed to using a thesaurus, did i use ai?!
I clapped at the end too!
I once had a conference paper submission that was reviewed by 4 persons. One of the reviewers feedback was obviously AI generated. This was a large conference, so there's no stopping use of AI by peer reviewers.
What about searching for literature. instead of the the classical search methods in science databases?
Can we use AI for Review paper
I think it is good that publishers have now set clear standards for how AI can be used. Of course, there is nothing in them that isn't common sense, but there are more and more paper mills cranking out fake papers by the thousands.
I actually clapped at the end! Thanks for turning all that lengthy 'grandmother' information into bite-sized videos. I feel better now knowing it's fine to use AI to proofread my papers!
🕊
The FIRST one is the most important. Haha. Great man.
If I use IA to create a code to analyze my data I can´t publicate?
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Did you say there's something wrong with Nature? What?
Check out how AI plagiarism checkers are falsely flagging papers written by people on the Autism spectrum
or are neurodiverse. It makes sense because their processing and language patterns are different.
List the friends you bounced ideas off of and their net worth.
Hey Andy….Thank you for the update! Just wondering what your thoughts are on tools like Rayyan etc that have AI integrated, but are being used for better UX in Lit reviews etc as opposed to using clunky Excel, would you say we would still need to cite that even though not explicitly using it to generate content?
"Rules? Where we're going, we don't need rules." ~ Future Back to
Dear Andrew, I recently used STORM AI which is designed by Stanford University. Try to to do a youtube based on this.
Next time I will add in the acknowledgements: 'Apart from AI, I used a Mac with trackpad, a pencil, a pencil sharper, an eraser, a digital calculator, glasses (because, you know, age), two pens (one for thinking, one for writing), a printer and A4 paper to print and write on (obviously), two highlighting markers (to emphasize the really important stuff), a whiteboard (for those late-night brainstorming sessions that woke up the neighbors), three erasable board markers (because even geniuses make mistakes), a spell checker (thank you, technology, for saving me from embarrassment), LaTeX (the only way to make equations look sexy), at least three different coffee machines (a true researcher needs options), my wife who used at least one of these machines to brew my coffee (and kept me from caffeine overdose), at least three different programming languages (because one is never enough for world domination), a napkin for sneezing (allergies are a scholar's worst enemy), toilet paper to deal with the natural needs one has (let's keep it real, folks), LED lighting (to illuminate the path to knowledge), solar panels to generate the energy needed for the machines I used (gotta save the planet while conquering academia), some chilled water, occasionally with CO2 (hydration is key, bubbles are optional).'
Oh crap, I just realized I forgot to keep track of all the food my body needed for getting the paper done! Should I list every apple, every noodle, every coffee bean? I hope the reviewers won't reject me for that! Maybe I should propose a new mandatory course: 'Ethical Consumption in Academic Research'. Forget plagiarism, the real crime is forgetting to cite your breakfast cereal! The mandatory ethics courses will get even more boring with this stuff than they already were (if that's even possible). (Thank you Google Gemini for making this post even better ;))
So it's okay to use a human research assistant but it's not okay to use an AI research assistant. It's okay to discuss your work with colleagues, but not with an AI like NotebookLM.
I keep replying my comment and it keeps been deleted whyyy??
Can AI like ChatGPT find research gap? If yes, Can we trust the the research gap it finds ?
Oh look! Someone with their face + pointing in a thumbnail! How original! Just think about how many more clicks you’ll get now that you look exactly like every other unimaginative lemming moron on YouTube! 😂
I'm still a bit confused. I am a non-native English speaker. If I submit my paper and ask ChatGPT to rewrite it in an academic tone, and ChatGPT provides results with 1) different sentence structures and 2) vocabulary but retains the same meaning as my original work, is that allowed?
Excellent !
Greetings from Ecuador