Alghazali Ahn Department of Nursing, Altoosi University College, Al-Najaf, Iraq

Search for other papers by Alghazali Ahn in
Current site
Google Scholar
Alkhaqani Al Ministry of Health, Al-Najaf Direction, Al-Sadder Medical Hospital, Al-Najaf, Iraq

Search for other papers by Alkhaqani Al in
Current site
Google Scholar
Open access

The Internet has opened up many opportunities for people to express their thoughts and opinions. One such opportunity takes the form of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a program that individuals can use to write articles for publication. This has led to debate among academics about whether they should consider ChatGPT as a credible tool for generating content for publication. This article explores the pros and cons of using ChatGPT and examines whether academics should worry about its impact on their reputation.

Firstly, it is important to recognise that academic writing is supposed to be original work that reflects a person's knowledge, creativity, and individuality. When artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools are used, the question arises as to whether the writer has truly demonstrated his or her academic capabilities or is merely relying on machine-generated content, thus devaluing the concept of originality that has been a crucial aspect of academia for centuries. It is imperative that AI writing tools do not become a shortcut or substitute for the intellectual rigour and creativity required of researchers and scholars.

The use of AI writing tools may also give rise to ethical concerns, primarily with respect to plagiarism. Since AI writing tools mimic existing texts, artificially generated content potentially plagiarises original works. Without proper citation, writers may be liable for copyright infringement, even if unintentional. Furthermore, academic institutions place a high value on the attribution of sources and ideas: researchers are expected to acknowledge their colleagues' work in their published papers, for example. Using AI writing tools potentially weakens this practice, thus jeopardising academic integrity [1].

Academics are now starting to worry about the implications of AI tools, particularly in relation to writing. If ChatGPT is able to generate articles, summaries, and even substantial academic papers to a high standard, then what is the significance of the work produced by scholars? Although instant outputs from ChatGPT are improving, the program is still incapable of identifying the difference between good and mediocre writing. Writing involves analysing new data, understanding the connections between different topics, and monitoring the quality of opposing arguments. While ChatGPT may be able to convey a great deal of content, it is not yet equipped to perform these higher-level activities in the way that humans can [2].

Furthermore, ChatGPT is unable to come up with original ideas and evaluate content within a particular field. Its output is only as beneficial as the data that have been used to train it, and although it can produce accurate and relevant content, the originality and quality of that content are questionable. As a result, academics should not be concerned about ChatGPT in terms of the quality of their work. ChatGPT is an excellent tool for avoiding repetitive tasks, providing useful and efficient answers to common questions, and performing tasks that do not require human input. However, academics do not need to be afraid about their work being replaced by ChatGPT, as the technology is still in its infancy and has not yet been perfected for the creation of academic content. On the contrary, academics would do well to embrace the opportunity to improve communication between technology and humans [3].

One of the most significant potential impacts of AI writing in academia is the loss of jobs for academic writers. There is no doubt that AI algorithms are becoming more and more competent in terms of producing high-quality content, which raises the question of whether human writers will one day become obsolete. However, it is important to note that AI writing is not yet able to replace the creativity and critical thinking that human writers bring to the table. Academics who are able to provide original insights and ideas will always be in demand. Another area of concern is the ethical implications of AI tools for academia. Many algorithms have been trained using vast amounts of data, some of which may have been obtained unethically or without proper consent. As a result, there is a risk that AI writing may perpetuate existing inequalities or biases, which could have a negative impact on scholarship and research.

Despite these concerns, AI writing does have potential benefits for academia. It could help to make academic content more accessible to a wider audience, for example. The language used in academia can be dense and impenetrable to those without specialist knowledge, meaning that the general public may miss out on important ideas. By contrast, AI algorithms can produce clear and concise content that is more accessible to non-specialists. ChatGPT can help academics write more efficiently by streamlining the writing process but without being a career-ending threat to their profession, since it lacks the creativity, critical thinking, and expertise required of academics [4].

One of the advantages of ChatGPT is that it provides instant content for academics to work with, which saves time by eliminating the need to research material, gather data, or conduct interviews. However, the output may sometimes lack the depth of context that human-written articles offer. ChatGPT can provide only what it has learned from its vast database, and although it can be programmed to learn from a specific field, it cannot replace human expertise. Writing articles has always been an integral part of an academic's role, and ChatGPT can make it easier for academics to manage that workload. By producing articles more quickly, it allows them to focus on other academic contributions, such as teaching or research. However, academics should not depend solely on ChatGPT to do their writing for them, as they risk missing essential details and nuances when it comes to producing work that reflects the latest research and literature [5].

If ChatGPT is used to minimise the amount of thought put into an article, the final product will probably lack nuance and depth, making it of lower quality than an article written by an academic. Likewise, if an academic repeatedly uses ChatGPT to generate articles, it is crucial that they reflect on their approach to writing and try to improve the skills needed to do it properly. On the one hand, ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionise academic writing. The tool can generate large amounts of text quickly and even learn to imitate the style and tone of individual authors. This could be incredibly useful for scholars who need to produce a lot of written work in a short time or who want to explore new topics in their field without committing to a full research project. Additionally, AI language models like ChatGPT could help to address issues of inequality in academic writing by democratising the production of high-quality writing by scholars who may not have access to traditional resources [6].

On the other hand, concerns remain about the quality of the articles produced by ChatGPT. While the tool can certainly generate coherent sentences and paragraphs, it may not always produce work that meets the rigorous standards of scholarly research. There is a risk that ChatGPT-generated articles could lack originality, methodological rigour, or sound research design, and that they could be seen as less credible than work produced by human authors. Academics also worry that using AI language models could create a divide in publishing, where those who can afford the technology will produce the most sophisticated writing, while those who do not have the money or resources will fall behind [7].

The future of AI writing tools is promising. One of the most striking features of these tools is their ability to learn and grow. As the tools continue to be used, they learn more about the various writing styles and structures commonly used in academia. As such, they are becoming even more efficient in assisting with writing tasks. Additionally, AI writing tools are designed to predict grammar and spelling errors, detect plagiarism, and provide suggestions on improving the quality of an academic document. However, it is reasonable to ask whether academics should be concerned about these developments. While AI writing tools can significantly reduce the time spent on academic writing projects, it is essential to note that they should not be used as a substitute for genuine writing skills. Many academics are already concerned that AI writing tools may lead to a rise in plagiarism, as students may rely solely on these tools rather than engaging in critical thinking or genuine writing [8].

As mentioned above, academics are concerned about the potential ethical implications of AI writing tools. The need for transparency and accountability remains a significant concern, and the academic community and regulatory bodies should ensure that such tools do not compromise academic standards. There is certainly a need for ethical guidelines in relation to the development and application of these tools in research and other academic settings. Academic writing traditionally requires a high level of intellectual engagement, critical thinking, and collaboration, which machines are not able to replicate. Moreover, the style of writing and the presentation of ideas in academic writing are unique to each researcher, and technology cannot match this level of authenticity. Chatbots lack the analytical and research skills necessary for academic writing, which may lead to a reduction in the quality of research and its outcomes [9].

Writing is not simply about putting words together; it requires an understanding of the context and aims of the research. Critical evaluation of the data and information collected in academic research, and the nuances of human language that help illustrate a study's findings, are crucial. While writing with the help of a chatbot might save time and effort, it can lead to a loss of the nuance and authenticity that human writing entails. Academics must preserve authenticity in their research writing, while academic institutions must focus on encouraging and developing their students' writing skills. The incorporation of technology into the writing process could ultimately hinder this development and create a generation of research writers who do not understand what it takes to write good academic content. Students should be encouraged to embrace the writing process and learn the skills necessary for writing [10].

In conclusion, ChatGPT may offer a convenient and efficient way for academics to produce articles or research papers. However, it is important to be aware of the limitations of AI programs, such as potential inaccuracies and plagiarism. Thus, while ChatGPT may be a valuable tool for generating ideas or inspiration, it should be used cautiously and supplemented with human expertise and critical thinking. Ultimately, academics should embrace innovation and technology but must never forget the importance of academic integrity and intellectual rigour. While there is no doubt that ChatGPT has revolutionised AI technology, there are a number of reasons why academics should not worry about it replacing human writing entirely. The technology still requires careful monitoring, for example, to ensure that content is accurate, informative, and appropriate for the intended audience. While ChatGPT is able to generate an article within minutes, human intervention is still required to edit and proofread the content.

Author's contributions

The authors contributed to the article's conception, drafted the manuscript, critically analysed the manuscript, and provided valuable feedback. The authors contributed towards the acquisition of data, approved the final version of the manuscript, and agreed to be responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the study and ensuring that it meets at least one of the following criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).


No specific grants were received from government, commercial, or non-profit funds.

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest has been declared by the author.

Consent for publication

The author grants publishers the right to publish and distribute this work as an original piece of writing that has not been previously published.




  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.


The Author Declaration Form is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.


Senior Editors

Editor-in-Chief: Zoltán Zsolt NAGY
Vice Editors-in-Chief: Gabriella Bednárikné DÖRNYEI, Ákos KOLLER
Managing Editor: Johanna TAKÁCS

Editorial Board

  • Zoltán BALOGH (Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Klára GADÓ (Department of Clinical Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István VINGENDER (Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Attila DOROS (Department of Imaging and Medical Instrumentation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Judit Helga FEITH (Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Mónika HORVÁTH (Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Illés KOVÁCS (Department of Clinical Ophthalmology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Ildikó NAGYNÉ BAJI (Department of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tamás PÁNDICS (Department for Epidemiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • József RÁCZ (Department of Addictology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Lajos A. RÉTHY (Department of Family Care Methodology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • János RIGÓ (Department of Clinical Studies in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Andrea SZÉKELY (Department of Oxyology and Emergency Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Márta VERESNÉ BÁLINT (Department of Dietetics and Nutritional Sicences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Gyula DOMJÁN (Department of Clinical Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Péter KRAJCSI (Department of Morphology and Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • György LÉVAY (Department of Morphology and Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Csaba NYAKAS (Department of Morphology and Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Vera POLGÁR (Department of Morphology and Physiology, InFaculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • László SZABÓ (Department of Family Care Methodology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Katalin TÁTRAI-NÉMETH (Department of Dietetics and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Katalin KOVÁCS ZÖLDI (Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Gizella ÁNCSÁN (Library, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • András FALUS (Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Zoltán UNGVÁRI (Department of Public Health, Faculty of medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Romána ZELKÓ (Faculty of Pharmacy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Mária BARNAI (Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Studies, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary)
  • László Péter KANIZSAI (Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary)
  • Bettina FŰZNÉ PIKÓ (Department of Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary)
  • Imre SEMSEI (Faculty of Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary)
  • Teija-Kaisa AHOLAAKKO (Laurea Universities of Applied Sciences, Vantaa, Finland)
  • Ornella CORAZZA (University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom)
  • Oliver FINDL (Department of Ophthalmology, Hanusch Hospital, Vienna, Austria)
  • Tamás HACKI (University Hospital Regensburg, Phoniatrics and Pediatric Audiology, Regensburg, Germany)
  • Xu JIANGUANG (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China)
  • Paul GM LUITEN (Department of Molecular Neurobiology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands)
  • Marie O'TOOLE (Rutgers School of Nursing, Camden, United States)
  • Evridiki PAPASTAVROU (School of Health Sciences, Cyprus University of Technology, Lemesos, Cyprus)
  • Pedro PARREIRA (The Nursing School of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal)
  • Jennifer LEWIS SMITH (Collage of Health and Social Care, University of Derby, Cohehre President, United Kingdom)
  • Yao SUYUAN (Heilongjiang University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Heilongjiang, China)
  • Valérie TÓTHOVÁ (Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic)
  • Tibor VALYI-NAGY (Department of Pathology, University of Illonois of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States)
  • Chen ZHEN (Central European TCM Association, European Chamber of Commerce for Traditional Chinese Medicine)
  • Katalin LENTI FÖLDVÁRI-NAGY LÁSZLÓNÉ (Department of Morphology and Physiology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • László FÖLDVÁRI-NAGY (Department of Morphology and Physiology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)



CrossRef Cites 8
CrossRef H-index 2
Days from submission to acceptance 219
Days from acceptance to publication 176





Developments in Health Sciences
Publication Model Online only Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge none
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

Developments in Health Sciences
Language English
Size A4
Year of
per Year
per Year
Founder Semmelweis Egyetem
H-1085 Budapest, Hungary Üllői út 26.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2630-9378 (Print)
ISSN 2630-936X (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Dec 2023 0 0 0
Jan 2024 0 0 0
Feb 2024 0 0 0
Mar 2024 0 0 0
Apr 2024 0 0 0
May 2024 0 139 70
Jun 2024 0 133 32