ChatGPT generated the four standard parts of a research study for the researchers.
The ChatGPT technology just started making waves in December 2022, but experts are already hailing it as the future of tech. This artificial intelligence tool is not so popular among academics, however.
Science and Springer Nature, two of the most prestigious journals in the academic publishing industry, have introduced editorial standards that prohibit or severely limit the use of tools such as ChatGPT.
This concern may be amplified by a new study. The company claims it can serve as a research aide for academics, not a threat.
“The Good Finance Journal”
A recent article published in The Conversation details the findings of a study conducted by Trinity College Dublin and Dublin University finance researchers Brian Lucey and Michael Dowling.
Using ChatGPT, they claim, one could write a finance paper that would pass as academic.
The AI tool was first asked to produce the four standard parts of a research study: the research problem, related literature, dataset, and suggestions for testing and examination.
In an interview with ChatGPT, the researchers said they would like their output to be published in a “good finance journal.”
The researchers also pasted at least 200 abstracts from relevant research studies into the ChatGPT window and asked it to create the four research stages based on these abstracts.
Their expertise was used to review the tool’s answers and suggest improvements to ensure that it is still utilized.
A panel of 32 reviewers was then asked to assess ChatGPT’s output. The purpose was to determine if the paper is comprehensive, correct, and contributes to the field of finance studies.
It is Considered Acceptable
According to Lucey and Dowling, the panel considered all of these studies to be acceptable in most cases. Though it is still in its infancy, this might indicate that the AI tool is capable of producing high-quality academic research ideas.
Researchers discovered that different research areas were rated differently. There were many good ratings given to the dataset and the research proposal. There was a lower rating for the literature reviews and testing recommendations, but they were still acceptable.
Researchers believe ChatGPT excels at connecting external texts, but it is also weak in complex stages, especially when literature reviews and testing are involved in the conceptual process.
” ChatGPT should be seen as a helpful tool rather than a threat by researchers. It may be of particular use to groups that lack the financial resources for traditional (human) research assistance,” the authors wrote.
It is also important for academics to be aware of the ban on using it as part of their journal writing. The implications of this tool for the academic world are contested, so it must be used carefully.
Read More Articles About ChatGPT : Google Invests in ChatGPT Competitor as it Enters AI race, Gaining Access to Claude