IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v52y2025i2p321-325..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are Latin American countries in the limbo of open-access scientific publications?

Author

Listed:
  • Max Chavarría
  • Bruno Lomonte
  • José María Gutiérrez
  • Edgardo Moreno
  • Alice L Pérez

Abstract

The use of ChatGPT, an artifcial intelligence-based language model, in article writing has raised ethical issues such as authorship, plagiarism, and errors in references. In this research, we aimed to examine the use of ChatGPT in academic publications from an ethical perspective. In the procedures published by many publishers, it is stated that ChatGPT cannot be accepted as an author, but support can be received from them in cases such as translation, and this support should be clearly stated in the acknowledgment section of the article. However, there is a need for programs that can objectively evaluate the sections where ChatGPT is used, rather than relying on the subjective statements of the authors regarding for which parts of the article they have received support from ChatGPT. With the correct use of this technology, it is thought that concerns in the field of academia can be eliminated in the near future.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Chavarría & Bruno Lomonte & José María Gutiérrez & Edgardo Moreno & Alice L Pérez, 2025. "Why are Latin American countries in the limbo of open-access scientific publications?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 321-325.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:2:p:321-325.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae079
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:2:p:321-325.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.