Navigating the AI frontier: Should we fear ChatGPT use in higher education and scientific research? Finding a middle ground through guiding principles and practical applications

Abstract

The adoption of Artificial Intelligence-based chatbots, including ChatGPT, in various sectors has raised concerns about their implications in higher education and scientific research. While the academic world aims to foster critical thinking and produce reliable research, the use of chatbots has elicited resistance from some academics due to fears of inaccuracies. In this paper, we extensively examine this phenomenon in higher education and scientific research, seeking to understand its practical applications, limitations, and potential risks. We investigated how ChatGPT is currently being used by academia, young researchers, and students. We also identified its areas of application and conducted trials by engaging ChatGPT, with transcripts included in the paper. Based on our findings, we discuss the results in the context of the needs in higher education and scientific research, presenting guidelines for responsible adoption. We distinguish positive use cases, areas requiring caution, explicit limitations of ChatGPT, and cases of unethical use. Importantly, we view ChatGPT as a valuable technological innovation but emphasize the necessity for thoughtful and responsible implementation. While we do not consider its use inherently deceitful, consistent, and shared guidelines are essential to ensure its ethical and effective application.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence chatbots ChatGPT higher education scientific writing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altmäe

Sola-Leyva

Salumets

(2023). Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: A friend or a foe? Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 47(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.009

Biber

Gray

(2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001

Checa

Fernández-Berrocal

(2015). The role of intelligence quotient and emotional intelligence in cognitive control processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01853

Ch’ng

L. K.

(2023, February 5). A new buzz in teaching and learning: ChatGPT. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/a-new-buzz-in-teaching-and-learning-chatgpt

Ciasullo

(2023). Le implicazioni pedagogiche e le possibilità dell’Intelligenza Artificiale Alessandro Ciasullo. https://doi.org/10.6093/2284-0184/9762

Dick

(2019). Artificial intelligence. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.92fe150c

Dillion

Tandon

Gray

(2023). Can AI language models replace human participants? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(7), 597–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.008

Di Tore

P. A.

(2023). Intelligenza artificiale e processi educativi secondo ChatGPT. UBIQ. 2022-Metawelt: Corpi, Interazioni, Educazioni, 3(1), 1–19.

Ecarnot

Seronde

M. F.

Chopard

Schiele

Meneveau

(2015). Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. European Geriatric Medicine, 6(6), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2015.08.005

10.

Erikson

E. H.

(1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

11.

Giglio

A. D.

Costa

M. U. P. D.

(2023). The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native English speakers. Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira, 69(9), e20230560. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230560

12.

Golan

Reddy

Muthigi

Ramasamy

(2023). Artificial intelligence in academic writing: A paradigm-shifting technological advance. Nature Reviews Urology, 20(6), 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-023-00746-x

13.

Gondal

U. H.

Husain

(2013). A comparative study of intelligence quotient and emotional intelligence: Effect on employes? performance. Eurasian Journal of Business and Management, 5, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.19026/AJBM.5.5824

14.

Grossmann

Feinberg

Parker

D. C.

Christakis

N. A.

Tetlock

P. E.

Cunningham

W. A.

(2023). AI and the transformation of social science research. Science, 380(6650), 1108–1109. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi1778

15.

Guo

Zhang

Wang

Jiang

Nie

Ding

Yue

(2023). How close is ChatGPT to human experts? Comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2301.07597. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.07597

16.

Holmes

(2023, February 28). Universities warn against using ChatGPT for assignments. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-64785020

17.

Honkalampi

Hintikka

Tanskanen

Lehtonen

Viinamäki

(2000). Depression is strongly associated with alexithymia in the general population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 48(1), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(99)00083-5

18.

Huang

Kwak

(2023). Is Chatgpt better than human annotators? Potential and limitations of Chatgpt in explaining implicit hate speech. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2302.07736. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543873.3587368

19.

Hutson

(2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611(7934), 192–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w

20.

Hyland

Zou

(2022). Titles in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 56, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094

21.

Jeblick

Schachtner

Dexl

Mittermeier

Stüber

A. T.

Topalis

Weber

Wesp

Sabel

Ricke

Ingrisch

(2022). ChatGPT Makes medicine easy to swallow: An exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2212.14882. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.14882

22.

Kankanhalli

(2020). Artificial intelligence and the role of researchers: Can it replace us? Drying Technology, 38(12), 1539–1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2020.1801562

23.

Mabry

(2001). Responsive evaluation is to personalized assessment …. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(92), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ev.37

24.

Mallow

(2023, March 1). ChatGPT For students: How AI chatbots are revolutionizing education. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/chatgpt-for-students-how-ai-chatbots-are-revolutionizing-education

25.

Mannucci

P. V.

Yong

(2015). To infinity... and beyond! The impact of knowledge depth and breadth on creativity over the career. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015, 13063–13063. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.13063abstract

26.

Moore

J. W.

(2016). What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272

27.

Nicolaisen

(2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 609–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410120

28.

Norman

K. P.

Govindjee

Norman

S. R.

Godoy

Cerrone

K. L.

Kieschnick

D. W.

Kassler

(2020). Natural language processing tools for assessing progress and outcome of two veteran populations: Cohort study from a novel online intervention for posttraumatic growth. JMIR formative research, 4(9), e17424. https://doi.org/10.2196/17424

29.

Nur

(2014). The role of episodic and semantic memory on exam performance among freshmen and senior students in psychology. [Master’s thesis, Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University, Department of Psychology]. Metu. https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12617456/index.pdf

30.

Ogurlu. (2015). Relationship between cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence and humor styles. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.15345/IOJES.2015.02.003

31.

OpenAI. (2021). ChatGPT. https://openai.com

32.

Park

J. Y.

(2023). Could ChatGPT help you to write your next scientific paper?: Concerns on research ethics related to usage of artificial intelligence tools. Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 49(3), 105–106. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2023.49.3.105

33.

Proctor

E. K.

Powell

B. J.

Baumann

A. A.

Hamilton

A. M.

Santens

R. L.

(2012). Writing implementation research grant proposals: Ten key ingredients. Implementation Science, 7, 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-96

34.

Rainsberger

(2022). Explanation: What is New and different about ai? In Rainsberger

(Ed.), AI - the new intelligence in sales: Tools, applications and potentials of artificial intelligence (pp. 1–16). Springer Fachmedien.

35.

Roberts

M. E.

Barthel

F. M.

Lopez

Tchanturia

Treasure

J. L.

(2011). Development and validation of the Detail and Flexibility Questionnaire (DFlex) in eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 12(3), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2011.04.001

36.

Salvagno

Taccone

F. S.

Gerli

A. G.

(2023). Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Critical Care, 27, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2

37.

Sharma

Goyal

Malik

(2017). An intelligent behaviour shown by ChatBot system. International Journal of New Technology and Research, 3(4), 52–54.

38.

Smeds

M. R.

Mendes

O’Banion

L. A.

Shalhub

(2023). Exploring the pros and cons of using artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation for scientific journals. Journal of Vascular Surgery Cases and Innovative Techniques, 9(2), 101163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvscit.2023.101163

39.

Tullu

(2019). Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(5), 12–S17. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_685_18

40.

Valente

Lourenço

A. A.

(2020). Conflict in the classroom: How teachers’ emotional intelligence influences conflict management. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00005

41.

Wang

(2019). On defining artificial intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 10(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2019-0002

42.

Webb

C. A.

DelDonno

Killgore

W. D. S.

(2014). The role of cognitive versus emotional intelligence in Iowa Gambling Task performance: What’s emotion got to do with it? Intelligence, 44, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.03.008

43.

Wohlfarth

Streit

S. R.

Guttormsen

(2023). Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: A deuteragonistic role? Cureus, 15(9), e45513. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.45513

44.

Zhong

Ding

Liu

Tao

(2023). Can Chatgpt understand too? A comparative study on Chatgpt and fine-tuned bert. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2302.10198. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.10198