Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/11531/100513
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorCalderón Cuadrado, María Reyeses-ES
dc.contributor.authorHerrera Triguero, Franciscoes-ES
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-10T14:17:19Z-
dc.date.available2025-07-10T14:17:19Z-
dc.date.issued2025-12-31es_ES
dc.identifier.issn2662-9992es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps:doi.org10.1057s41599-025-04650-0es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11531/100513-
dc.descriptionArtículos en revistases_ES
dc.description.abstractes-ES
dc.description.abstractThis interdisciplinary paper analyzes the use of Large Language Models based chatbots (LLM-chatbots), with ChatGPT the most known exponent, in scientific research writing. By interacting with LLM-chatbots, researchers could reduce efforts and costs as well as improve efficiency, but taking important risks, limitations, and weaknesses, which could highly-order erosion scientific thought. While many scientific journals, as well as major publishers such as Springer-Nature or Taylor & Francis, are restricting its use, others advocate for its normalization. Debate focuses on two main questions: the possible authorship of LLM-chatbots, which is majority denied because their inability to meet the required standards; and the acceptance of hybrid articles (using LLM-chatbots). Very recently, focusing on the education area, literature has found analogical similarities between some issues involved in Chatbots and that of Plato criticisms of writing, contained in the Phaedrus. However, the research area has been neglected. Combining philosophical and technological analysis, we explore Plato’s myth of Theuth and Thamus, questioning if chatbots can improve science. From an interdisciplinary perspective, and according with Plato, we conclude LLM-chatbots cannot be considered as authors in a scientific context. Moreover, we offer some arguments and requirements to accept hybrid articles. We draw attention to the need for social science publishers, an area where conceptual hypotheses can take a long time to confirm, rather than solely on experimental observations. Finally, we advocate that publishers, communities, technical experts, and regulatory authorities collaborate to establish recommendations and best practices for chatbot use.en-GB
dc.language.isoen-GBes_ES
dc.sourceRevista: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Periodo: 1, Volumen: online, Número: , Página inicial: 713-1, Página final: 713-13es_ES
dc.subject.otherInstituto de Investigación Tecnológica (IIT)es_ES
dc.titleAnd Plato met ChatGPT: an ethical reflection on the use of chatbots in scientific research writing, with a particular focus on the social scienceses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dc.rights.holderes_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.keywordses-ES
dc.keywordsLLMs based chatbots, ChatGPT; Authorship; Hybrid articles; Ethics on Research; Social Sciences.en-GB
Aparece en las colecciones: Artículos

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
IIT-25-088R626,1 kBUnknownVisualizar/Abrir
IIT-25-088R_preview3,81 kBUnknownVisualizar/Abrir


Los ítems de DSpace están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.