Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

PaperCard for Reporting Machine Assistance in Academic Writing

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.04824 v1 pith:YVRO24A4 submitted 2023-10-07 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords writingacademicprocessquestionsauthorshiphumanaddressdevelopments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Academic writing process has benefited from various technological developments over the years including search engines, automatic translators, and editing tools that review grammar and spelling mistakes. They have enabled human writers to become more efficient in writing academic papers, for example by helping with finding relevant literature more effectively and polishing texts. While these developments have so far played a relatively assistive role, recent advances in large-scale language models (LLMs) have enabled LLMs to play a more major role in the writing process, such as coming up with research questions and generating key contents. This raises critical questions surrounding the concept of authorship in academia. ChatGPT, a question-answering system released by OpenAI in November 2022, has demonstrated a range of capabilities that could be utilised in producing academic papers. The academic community will have to address relevant pressing questions, including whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be merited authorship if it made significant contributions in the writing process, or whether its use should be restricted such that human authorship would not be undermined. In this paper, we aim to address such questions, and propose a framework we name "PaperCard", a documentation for human authors to transparently declare the use of AI in their writing process.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Penalizing Transparency? How AI Disclosure and Author Demographics Shape Human and AI Judgments About Writing

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI disclosure lowers perceived article quality for both human and LLM raters, and only LLM raters show a demographic preference that disappears when AI assistance is disclosed.

Pith tools