The right way to use AI is pioneered by Lefty

It's Peer Review Week 2023!

This is the first post of this week, so we're discussing reading other researchers' work, how this impacts our own, and the broader community.

Stick around and follow daily!

If you want to know how i do it, check it here.
If you want to know why you should care, read on.

Eleftherios Teperikidis is the lead author of the first AI-powered systematic review.

 

One of the most interesting articles I read in recent weeks has been one on using artificial inteligence (AI) for research... It's called Prompting ChatGPT to perform an umbrella review. For me, the most remarkable feature of this publication is it dispassionate analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of using AI tools in scientific writing.  

ChatGPT was successfully prompted to execute nearly every step of the systematic review process, by using PICO (Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) as a universal technique to approach the scientific writing process.

There has been a lot of hype, people fearing their jobs would be at risk, and a new term was coined —hallucinations. For some weird reason, there was a discussion on AI being named as an author. As if academics were ever keen to share credit...

Gupta et al. state:

As pioneers in our field, we must realize that ChatGPT is a tool designed to assist clinicians rather than a substitute for human expertise. All in all, the ethical accountability of utilizing tools such as ChatGPT lies with its user, who is responsible for designing the study, collecting data, and formulating a manuscript.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable approach, especially for researchers that are time deprived. Tools that save us time are always welcomed. Nevertheless, when you are me and see something like this in a scientific paper, you stop and take a look. 

Eleftherios Teperikidis, Aristi Boulmpou, Victoria Potoupni, Satyabrata Kundu, Balpreet Singh & Christodoulos Papadopoulos (2023)  
Does the long-term administration of proton pump inhibitors increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes? A ChatGPT powered umbrella review, Acta Cardiologica, DOI: 10.1080/00015385.2023.2231299

According to Lefty, ChatGPT 3.5 has the advantage of beeing an aggregator tool, where the whole process can be automated and conducted in record time (minutes rather than days). Nevertheless, it stumbles at the risk of bias assessment using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. 

This little checklist (AMSTAR 2) prompts authors to reflect on the design and quality of the studies they plan on including in their analysis. A simple question such as "Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?" is often left unaddressed. Even if there's a little note stating "Reporting that the reviewers looked for this information but it was not reported by study authors also qualifies".

This is a question I've seen before. In a form. Repeatedly. 

Do you want to know where? Post-publication audits, that's where... it's heartbreaking to perform them (but I do), and I view it as part of my work as a reviewer. 

Trust in science starts with the people doing it everyday. We want to be able to trust the scholarly record. 

Join me for more this week, as we uncover the novel ways in which trust and truth are achieved. 

It starts with transparency.


 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

London Book Fair 2024: challenges for publishers

Image
I went to London with a purpose. It’s always good to meet collaborators and friends, but I had other goals with my visit. You see, it’s never good when the decisions that impact us are arrived at without our input. I wanted to bring awareness of my new peer review standards project to those in the publishing industry that can benefit from them. I'm comfortable researching and reviewing, even editing and managing the peer review process, but hearing editors and publishers speak of the big picture issue was an eye-opener. Change is ever present The publishing industry fancies itself as having evolved to explore the heritage and lived experience of minorities, by more frequently placing a spotlight on hidden and undervalued communities. Jonathan Karp, who spoke on the current model of employee ownership that underpins his role as CEO at Simon & Schuster , perfectly exemplified this—with profits now being reinvested in the company, there’s a new collaborative...
Read more

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma...
Read more

London Book Fair 2024: OA and AI

Image
In a survey on the trends of academic publishing conducted in 2023, reflecting on the need to reformulate the current business model was front of mind. The need to optimize operational efficiencies may stem from the increased adoption of open access (OA) policies. For those not in the know, OA is a practice that enables research outputs to be distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, including the ability for copy or reuse, by applying an open license for copyright. The mandates  advocated by the Holdren Memo in the US, the Nelson Memo in the UK, and Plan S for the EU consolidated the view that unrestricted access to research publications is part of an integral right for transparency—we want to view the outcomes of taxpayer-funded research. However, many publishers follow a gold OA model and charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. This means that readers don't pay, because t...
Read more