This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A deep search tool might include academic preprints from 2024, but not peer-reviewed journal articles published yesterday. Ethical AI use and academicintegrity Generative AI tools introduce powerful possibilities including significant reductions, as well as a new frontier of plagiarism and uncritical thinking.
Teaching example: In one of my recent courses, I included a “workshop day” for students to peerreview each other’s drafts of case conceptualizations. Educators should teach students about proper citation practices and academicintegrity while allowing space for mistakes as part of the learning process.
Teaching example: In one of my recent courses, I included a “workshop day” for students to peerreview each other’s drafts of case conceptualizations. Educators should teach students about proper citation practices and academicintegrity while allowing space for mistakes as part of the learning process.
The paper passed three peerreviewers who reported that they believed the paper was written by a person. 1) noted that ChatGPT wrote academic abstracts that passed through the peerreview process 32% of the time even after reviewers had been told that some of the abstracts were fake.
The paper passed three peerreviewers who reported that they believed the paper was written by a person. 1) noted that ChatGPT wrote academic abstracts that passed through the peerreview process 32% of the time even after reviewers had been told that some of the abstracts were fake.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content