This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Letters to the Editor (35) Artificial Intelligence (1186) Chatbots and Conversational Agents (458) Generative Language Models Including ChatGPT (201) Digital Science, Open Science (69)

Published on in Vol 25 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/50591, first published .
AI Increases the Pressure to Overhaul the Scientific Peer Review Process. Comment on “Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened”

AI Increases the Pressure to Overhaul the Scientific Peer Review Process. Comment on “Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened”

AI Increases the Pressure to Overhaul the Scientific Peer Review Process. Comment on “Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened”

Authors of this article:

Nicholas Liu1 Author Orcid Image ;   Amy Brown2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (4) Tweetations (4) Metrics

Journals

  1. Májovský M, Mikolov T, Netuka D. AI Is Changing the Landscape of Academic Writing: What Can Be Done? Authors’ Reply to: AI Increases the Pressure to Overhaul the Scientific Peer Review Process. Comment on “Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened”. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2023;25:e50844 View
  2. Krausman P, Knipps A. The valuable role of referees. The Journal of Wildlife Management 2024;88(2) View
  3. Bellini V, Semeraro F, Montomoli J, Cascella M, Bignami E. Between human and AI: assessing the reliability of AI text detection tools. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2024;40(3):353 View
  4. Hall R. Generative Artificial Intelligence, Large Language Models, and JID Innovations. JID Innovations 2024;4(2):100256 View