1. INTRODUCTION

Rejection of book chapters, reviews, and research articles are common these days if they are not written by humans. ChatGPT is a powerful artificial intelligence tool that can generate text on almost any topic, given some input. It has been used by millions of users for various purposes, such as writing poems, stories, essays, and even code. However, it has also raised some ethical and quality concerns, especially in the field of academic research. Several science journals have banned or restricted the use of ChatGPT for writing or co-authoring papers, citing reasons such as accuracy, accountability, and originality. In this article, we will discuss why human-written articles are still better than ChatGPT-written articles and why journals should be cautious about accepting AI-generated texts.

2. UNRELIABLE, PRODUCES FAKE OR MISLEADING

First of all, ChatGPT is not a reliable source of information. It does not verify the facts or references it uses to generate text. It can produce fake or misleading statements that are not supported by evidence or logic. For example, a study by Ariyaratne et al1 compared the accuracy and quality of several ChatGPT-generated radiology articles with those written by human authors. They found that four out of five articles written by ChatGPT were significantly inaccurate, with fictitious references. One of the papers was well written, but all references were made up. This shows that ChatGPT can create coherent texts, but they are not trustworthy or valid.

3. A TOOL WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY

Secondly, ChatGPT is not accountable for its contribution to the work. It cannot sign a form declaring that it is responsible for its part of the research. It cannot design experiments, conduct them, or communicate with other scientists and the press. It cannot explain its methods, results, or implications. It cannot answer questions, address criticisms, or correct errors. It is simply a tool that generates text based on some input. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an author or a co-author of a paper. As Thorp, the editor-in-chief of Science, said 2, “Given the frenzy that has built up around this, it’s a good idea to make it absolutely explicit that we will not permit ChatGPT to be an author or to have its text used in papers.”

4. LACK OF HUMAN EXPERTISE AND COMPLEXITY

Thirdly, ChatGPT is not original or creative. It does not produce new knowledge or insights. It does not have a unique voice or style. It does not use metaphors, irony, or sarcasm. It does not express feelings or emotions. It simply rephrases or recombines existing texts that it has learned from. It does not add any value or meaning to the work. It may even plagiarize or copy from other sources without proper citation or acknowledgment. A study by Ortiz 3 showed that ChatGPT tends to describe experiences rather than share feelings, avoid personal pronouns, use unusual words, and repeat itself a lot. It also found that ChatGPT is extremely polite and never uses aggressive or rude language, which may indicate a lack of depth or authenticity.

5. WHY HUMAN WRITING IS STILL BEST FOR PUBLICATIONS

ChatGPT is a remarkable technology that can generate impressive texts on almost any topic, given some input. However, it is not a substitute for human intelligence, creativity, and integrity.

• It does not verify the facts or references it uses,
• It does not take responsibility for its contribution to the work, and
• It does not produce original or innovative content that adds value or insight to the work.
• It is simply a tool that rephrases or recombines existing texts that it has learned from.

Human writing, on the other hand, reflects the personality, voice, and style of the writer. It expresses emotions, opinions, and perspectives that ChatGPT cannot replicate. It uses creative devices, such as metaphors, irony, and sarcasm, to convey meaning and humor. It adapts to different contexts, audiences, and purposes, and uses appropriate tone, register, and vocabulary. It understands the nuances, subtleties, and implications of human language and communication. Therefore, human writing is still superior to ChatGPT writing in terms of quality, authenticity, and diversity.

6. RELY ON PROFESSIONALS FOR WRITING PUBLISHABLE ARTICLES

If you are looking for professional writing services that can help you with your academic publications, look no further than Editificient Services. We are a team of experienced and qualified writers who can assist you with any writing task, from editing, proofreading, and formatting, to writing from scratch. We guarantee originality, quality, and timely delivery of your work. We respect your privacy and confidentiality, and we offer reasonable prices and discounts. Contact us today and let us help you achieve your academic goals. Editificient Services: The best choice for your writing needs.

7. REFERENCES

(1) A comparison of ChatGPT-generated articles with human-written articles. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00256-023-04340-5.

(2) Science journals ban listing of ChatGPT as co-author on papers. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jan/26/science-journals-ban-listing-of-chatgpt-as-co-author-on-papers.

(3) ChatGPT or human text? Here’s one surprising way to tell the … – ZDNET. https://www.zdnet.com/article/chatgpt-or-human-text-heres-one-surprising-way-to-tell-the-difference/.

(4) Science journals ban ChatGPT from co-authoring papers. https://interestingengineering.com/culture/journals-ban-chatgpt-author-papers.

(5) Major publishers are banning ChatGPT from being listed as an academic …. https://phys.org/news/2023-01-major-publishers-chatgpt-academic-author.html.

(6) ChatGPT is not an author: Science journals ban listing AI as co-author …. https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/chatgpt-is-not-an-author-science-journals-ban-listing-ai-as-co-author-on-papers-2328655-2023-01-31.

(7) ChatGPT vs. human conversations: A comparative analysis. https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/chatgpt-vs-human-conversations-a-comparative-analysis-81f8bfb1c922.

(8) comparison of ChatGPT‐generated articles with human‐written articles. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00256-023-04340-5.