Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Modern threats in academia: evaluating plagiarism and artificial intelligence detection scores of ChatGPT

Eye volume 38, pages 397–400 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Plagiarism and research integrity are sensitive issues in the academic setting, especially after the recent offspring of artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4.0 [1]. As the popularity of ChatGPT increases, some authors have attempted to write abstracts and full-text articles using AI, obtaining essays that resemble genuine scientific papers [2,3,4]. Detection systems for AI-generated texts have been recently developed. Miller et al. performed AI detection on a large sample of abstracts belonging to articles published between 2020 and 2023, reporting a significant increase in AI-assisted writing [5].

We evaluated herein the plagiarism and AI-detection scores of GPT-4.0 when paraphrasing original scientific essays, and furthermore tested methods that could possibly evade AI detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. OpenAI, https://openai.com/. Accessed June 2023.

  2. Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo Y, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. npj Digital Med. 2023;6:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature. 2023;613:423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Májovský M, Černý M, Kasal M, Komarc M, Netuka D. Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: pandora’s box has been opened. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e46924. https://doi.org/10.2196/46924.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller LE, Bhattacharyya D, Miller VM, Bhattacharyya M. Recent trend in artificial intelligence-assisted biomedical publishing: a quantitative bibliometric analysis. Cureus. 2023;15:e39224. https://doi.org/10.7759/CUREUS.39224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy

    Andrea Taloni, Vincenzo Scorcia & Giuseppe Giannaccare

Authors
  1. Andrea Taloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincenzo Scorcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuseppe Giannaccare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, AT and GG; Methodology, AT, GG and VS; Validation, GG and VS; Formal Analysis, AT, and GG; Investigation, AT; Data Curation, AT; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, AT and GG; Writing—Review and Editing, AT, GG and VS; Visualization, AT, GG and VS; Supervision, GG and VS; Project Administration, AT, GG and VS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Giannaccare.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taloni, A., Scorcia, V. & Giannaccare, G. Modern threats in academia: evaluating plagiarism and artificial intelligence detection scores of ChatGPT. Eye 38, 397–400 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02678-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02678-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links