In the contemporary landscape of academic research, the utilization of technology has become indispensable. Among the tools available to researchers, Google Scholar and large language models such as ChatGPT play significant roles in advancing academic productivity and innovation. The thesis under consideration suggests that as Google Scholar does not claim co-authorship, neither should AI language models like ChatGPT. This argument rests on the premise that these technologies function as tools rather than collaborators. By examining the nature of authorship, the role of technology in research, and the active agency of the researcher, the validity of this thesis can be assessed.
Authorship in academia is attributed to those who contribute intellectual or creative input to a work. It encompasses the conception of ideas, the design of research, the analysis and interpretation of data, and the synthesis of findings into a coherent presentation. While tools and software may facilitate these activities, the creativity and intellectual effort remain the purview of the human researcher. Google Scholar, for instance, provides a repository of literature through which researchers can access prior studies, yet it neither contributes original insights nor interprets data. As such, it remains an enabler rather than a contributor.
When considering AI models like ChatGPT, it's essential to recognize that their outputs are rooted in complex algorithms trained on vast datasets. The suggestions and content generated lack the independent consciousness and intentionality required for authorship. ChatGPT outputs are dependent on user prompts and in the absence of an innovative intent, cannot claim intellectual contribution. Therefore, just as Google Scholar does not receive co-authorship credit, neither should ChatGPT and similar tools.
Historically, the introduction of new research tools has been met with speculation regarding their impact on scholarly work. From the invention of the printing press to the advent of the internet, each development has enhanced the scope and efficiency of research without supplanting the role of the researcher as the primary intellectual force. Google Scholar exemplifies how information retrieval systems augment, rather than replace, the human mind's ability to synthesize knowledge.
ChatGPT mirrors this dynamic in that it functions as an extension of human creativity—serving as a sounding board for ideas, offering suggestions for phrasing, or generating preliminary drafts on which researchers can build. Its contributions are guided and refined by the user's direct input and judgment. Ultimately, cognizance of this interplay—where AI serves as an extension rather than a replacement of human ingenuity—preserves the integrity of authorship within the human domain.
The agency of the researcher is paramount. Whether using Google Scholar to explore citations or leveraging ChatGPT to generate preliminary outputs, the researcher must maintain an assertive, proactive stance. This involves critically assessing AI-generated content, contextualizing it within existing literatures, and ensuring alignment with the researcher's objectives and conclusions. Such agency distinguishes the researcher from the tools they use, rendering the notion of AI as a co-author redundant.
By approaching technology as a collaborative tool, researchers retain accountability and ownership of their work. This aligns with the academic obligation to ensure that all credited authors have contributed meaningally to the intellectual substance of a publication. Therefore, the proactive stance advocated in the thesis naturally aligns with academic integrity and the principle of rightful attribution.
In sum, the assertion that using Google Scholar does not make it a co-author parallels the rationale for excluding ChatGPT from co-authorship status. By recognizing large language models as tools that serve the researcher's vision rather than substituting human intellect, it becomes clear that these technologies do not possess the qualities required for authorship. Like any tool, their value is derived from how they are employed by the researcher. This philosophy not only upholds the principles of academic authorship but also embraces the thoughtful integration of emerging technologies in the pursuit of knowledge.