ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better Scientific Writing Assistant?

被引:0
|
作者
Alsagri, Hatoon S. [1 ]
Farhat, Faiza [2 ]
Sohail, Shahab Saquib [3 ]
Saudagar, Abdul Khader Jilani [1 ]
机构
[1] Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic Univ IMSIU, Coll Comp & Informat Sci, Informat Syst Dept, Riyadh 11432, Saudi Arabia
[2] Aligarh Muslim Univ, Dept Zool, Aligarh 202002, Uttar Pradesh, India
[3] VIT Bhopal Univ, Sch Comp Sci & Engn, Sehore 466114, India
关键词
ChatGPT; LLM; Scientific writing; Gemini; OpenAI; Google; FUTURE; TITLE;
D O I
10.1007/s10805-024-09549-0
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The rapid evolution of scientific research has created a pressing need for efficient and versatile tools to aid researchers. While using artificial intelligence (AI) to write scientific articles is unethical and unreliable due to the potential for inaccuracy, AI can be a valuable tool for assisting with other aspects of research, such as language editing, reference formatting, and journal finding. Two of the latest AI-driven assistants that have become indispensable assets to scientists are ChatGPT and Gemini (Bard). These assistants offer comprehensive support from literature review to journal suggestion, and they have the potential to revolutionize research. In the present study, a comprehensive set of queries and responses were designed to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini as scientific assistants. The results showed that Gemini achieved a perfect score of 100%, while ChatGPT-3.5 scored a less impressive 70%. Notably, ChatGP-3.5 fell short in specific areas that includes providing assistance with scientific paper explanations, exploring bibliographic databases, and formatting references. The qualitative assessment of responses also suggests that both the AI chatbots can be valuable tools for researchers, however, Gemini seems to be more appealing and accurate through the whole procedure of scientific writing. This work shall open new research dimensions in identifying adequate scientific utilization of the evolving AI tools and technologies, as embracing these advancements will be essential for staying at the forefront of scientific research.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles
    Huang, Jingshan
    Tan, Ming
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 13 (04): : 1148 - 1154
  • [2] ChatGPT and scientific writing
    Mungmunpuntipantip, Rujittika
    Kleebayoon, Amnuay
    Wiwanitkit, Viroj
    IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY, 2023, 53 (03) : 267 - 267
  • [3] Generative AI makes for better scientific writing — but beware the pitfalls
    Zhongkai Liao
    Congcong Zhang
    Nature, 2024, 631 (8021) : 505 - 505
  • [4] ChatGPT in Scientific Writing: A Cautionary Tale
    Zheng, Haoyi
    Zhan, Huichun
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2023, 136 (08): : 725 - +
  • [6] Is Google Gemini better than ChatGPT at evaluating research quality?
    Thelwall, Mike
    JOURNAL OF DATA AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 2025,
  • [7] Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing
    Alkaissi, Hussam
    McFarlane, Samy I.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (02)
  • [8] ChatGPT for scientific writing - The coexistence of opportunities and challenges
    Zhou, Liangbin
    Wu, Alex Chao
    Hegyi, Peter
    Wen, Chunyi
    Qin, Ling
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRANSLATION, 2024, 44 : A1 - A3
  • [9] ChatGPT: a tool for scientific writing or a threat to integrity?
    Silva, Thaisa Pinheiro
    Ocampo, Thais S. C.
    Alencar-Palha, Caio
    Oliveira-Santos, Christiano
    Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari
    Oliveira, Matheus L.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 96 (1152):
  • [10] ChatGPT and scientific writing: A reflection on the ethical boundaries
    Ocampo, Thais Santos Cerqueira
    Silva, Thaisa Pinheiro
    Alencar-Palha, Caio
    Haiter-Neto, Francisco
    Oliveira, Matheus L.
    IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY, 2023, 53 (02) : 175 - 176