Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology has retracted an article featuring an unusual illustration of a rat with exaggerated genitalia. The illustration, which depicts the cross-section of a rat’s genitals, mistakenly incorporates a misleading connection to artificial intelligence (AI). The article went through a thorough peer-review process and editorial review before its publication in February.
This retraction sheds light on the presence of AI-generated artwork in scientific literature. The article in question focused on stem cells found in rats’ genitals and had undergone comprehensive peer review by experts in the field. However, it contained an image of a male rat with an inappropriate label around its genitals, presenting a flaw in the assessment of bibliometric data and the detection of fabricated information.
Critiques of this illustration quickly emerged online, with influential figures like artificial intelligence researcher Gary Marcus expressing discomfort with the proliferation of AI-generated content in scientific literature. This controversy has reignited debates surrounding the potential use of generative AI tools in science and academic papers. Proponents of AI tools argue that they facilitate rapid data processing and calculations.
On the other hand, skeptics warn of the dangers associated with artificial intelligence tools, including the creation of inaccurate data and dissemination of misleading information. A survey conducted by Nature in 2023 revealed that approximately 30% of scientists had employed these generative AI tools to write their manuscripts, indicating widespread acceptance within the scientific community.
In response to these concerns, prominent scientific journals have developed a code of ethics that outlines the appropriate utilization of generative AI in research and publication. Generative texts must now include clear references and explanations in articles published by journals such as Nature and Science. Additionally, institutional peer-reviewers are prohibited from employing AI in the evaluation of articles. Furthermore, the creation of AI-generated images is strongly discouraged, as journals may disregard such illustrations.
The retraction of an article featuring an AI-generated illustration underscores the importance of upholding journalistic and scientific integrity in scientific publishing. While the integration of AI in this field will likely continue, it is crucial for researchers and publishers to remain vigilant in safeguarding the authenticity and accuracy of scientific literature.