MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4382011325 · doi:10.1002/nur.22326

Harnessing AI for enhancing scientific writing in nursing research: Prospects, pitfalls, and solutions

2023· editorial· en· W4382011325 sur OpenAlexaff
Yasin M. Yasin, Areej Al‐Hamad

Notice bibliographique

RevueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2023
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Établissements canadiensToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNursingNursing researchMEDLINEEngineering ethicsMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been revolutionizing various domains of human endeavor, and the scientific writing landscape in nursing research is no exception (Davenport & Kalakota, 2019). Indeed, the increasing pervasiveness of AI tools for research writing offers significant advantages, but it also presents certain challenges. Nonetheless, with mindful use, these technologies can become pivotal for researchers, including those for whom English is a second language. AI software such as ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, and other tools like RapidMiner, Copilot by SCISPACE and Iris.ai, offer immense potential for automating and streamlining various tasks related to research. RapidMiner, with its robust AI capabilities, can be used for data analysis, enabling researchers to efficiently identify patterns and trends in their data (Bjaoui et al., 2020). Copilot serves as an AI-driven research assistant, adept at elucidating text, mathematical equations, and tables present in scientific literature, including research papers, technical blogs, and reports. This innovative tool possesses the capability to pose pertinent follow-up queries and promptly provide insightful answers, thereby facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the material at hand. Iris.ai, on the other hand, is an AI research assistant that can expedite the literature review process by providing faster access to relevant academic papers, thereby facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape. Furthermore, AI tools such as ChatGPT can also aid in drafting manuscripts (Kohli, 2023; Sawtell-Rickson, 2023), offering valuable suggestions for structuring and enhancing the content. This amalgamation of tools significantly boosts productivity and facilitates scientific progress by making research writing a more efficient process. In the case of nonnative English speakers, AI software with advanced language processing capabilities can help overcome language barriers by providing real-time language corrections, vocabulary suggestions, and grammar checks, thereby enhancing the overall readability and credibility of their work (Gayed et al., 2022). It could help researchers convey complex nursing concepts with clarity and precision. For example, Grammarly, an AI-powered writing assistant that can correct grammar and punctuation errors, enhance clarity and meaning, and even detect plagiarism, proving to be especially beneficial for nonnative English speakers (Oneill & Russell, 2019). Writefull, an AI language tool developed specifically for academic writing, offers researchers feedback on their writing, such as correcting language errors and providing alternative phrasing suggestions (Markéta, 2022). On the other hand, while the advantages are substantial, the use of AI in research writing also poses certain challenges. First, reliance on AI might inadvertently promote less critical engagement with literature and data analysis, which could potentially compromise the rigor and validity of the research (Hosseini et al., 2023). Second, AI systems might inadvertently introduce errors or biases in writing, given their training on existing data, which might reflect historical biases (Hosseini et al., 2023). Moreover, AI tools, while sophisticated, cannot fully replicate the nuanced understanding and experiential knowledge that human researchers bring to the table, especially in a field as human-centric as nursing research. Hence, uncritical reliance on AI might inadvertently overlook important nuances and complexities inherent in nursing research. To mitigate these potential disadvantages, the solution lies in mindful and responsible use of AI. Researchers need to maintain active engagement with their work, critically examining AI-generated content, and cross-verifying AI-processed data and literature. AI should be used as a tool to aid the process of research and not as a substitute for human intellectual effort and judgment. Importantly, scientists, researchers, and trainees should participate in the further development and fine-tuning of AI tools, ensuring the tools’ efficacy and minimizing misuse. Incorporating rigorous barriers against misinformation and biases is a crucial part of this endeavor. Furthermore, in promoting AI use in research writing, the principles of scientific integrity must remain paramount. As noted, there is nothing artificial about scientific integrity. It remains the responsibility of human researchers to ensure the highest ethical conduct and accurate reporting of science. In this context, AI tools should be used judiciously, supplementing human intelligence rather than replacing it. When a manuscript section, crafted by a Natural Language Processing (NLP) system such as ChatGPT, manifests inaccuracies or biases, the onus lies with the co-authors to ensure its correctness, persuasiveness, and ethical uprightness. Therefore, users of these NLP systems, when using them for manuscript writing, must rigorously vet the generated content for factual correctness, appropriate referencing, potential biases, logical and mathematical reasoning, pertinence, and novelty (Hosseini et al., 2023). In cases where NLP systems are used to generate English content and the authors possess limited English proficiency, it's essential to seek assistance from a fluent English speaker to detect potential errors. Should an NLP system err, either by inclusion or omission, authors must adopt precautionary steps to rectify it before publication. Looking towards the future, the potential applications of AI in nursing research and education appear to be expansive and transformative. With the integration of AI in data analysis and synthesis, we can anticipate a significant acceleration in nursing research. Incorporating AI in teaching nursing research to nursing students could significantly enhance their learning experience. To begin with, AI-powered tools could be integrated into the curriculum to expose students to real-world applications of AI in nursing research. For instance, AI-based data analysis tools can be used in teaching statistical analysis, enabling students to understand complex datasets and identify patterns more efficiently. Students could also use AI-driven literature review tools to streamline their research process, helping them understand how to select and synthesize relevant studies. Additionally, AI writing assistants can aid in teaching students how to draft clear and cohesive research manuscripts and improving their academic writing skills. As part of their training, students should also be taught about the ethical considerations related to the use of AI, including data privacy, bias, and the importance of human oversight. By doing so, nursing educators can equip students with both the practical skills and ethical awareness necessary to navigate the evolving landscape of nursing research in the AI era. Ultimately, the growing ubiquity of AI in research writing is an innovation that cannot be ignored. As researchers and educators in the field of nursing, it is our responsibility to use these tools to their best advantage, and for the greater good. By teaching our trainees to effectively and ethically utilize these tools, we enable the next generation of researchers to contribute significantly to the progress of nursing science. In conclusion, AI offers considerable potential in enhancing scientific writing in nursing research. However, this comes with the understanding that the tools are just that—tools. Human intelligence, discernment, and integrity remain the driving force behind all scientific progress. Manuscript writing: Yasin M. Yasin and Areej AL-hamad. Critical revisions for important intellectual content: Yasin M. Yasin and Areej AL-hamad. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,049
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,594
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0490,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,425
Tête enseignante GPT0,622
Écart entre enseignants0,197 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResearch in Nursing & HealthMême sujetArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTravaux en français237 207