# data[].attributes.body
These presentation slides have been shared with the permission of the presenters who retain copyright.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SlideDeck - Promises Perils and Possibilities v2

# data[].attributes.headline
Can we use it [AI] for screening when the library subscription rules say you cannot use AI tools in many cases?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can we use it [AI] for screening when the library subscription rules say you cannot use AI tools in many cases?

# data[].attributes.body
Question from Zoom.

# data[].attributes.body
Isn’t it better to disclose the use of AI in academic research (at whatever level) so that the person consuming the research is able to make their own informed decision about any bias that might add?

Doesn’t transparency prepare us for the future, knowing that there is a source of truth for this current moment in time as we go through this period of muddiness with early stage AI models and agents in which regulation and accreditation are being determined.

Question from Zoom.

# data[].attributes.body
Does the panel have an opinion on the Google NotepadLM and if it’s a viable tool for research sourcing?

Question from Zoom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there a link you can share to access Dimension research GPT through UQ sovereignty of is it fully accessible?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there a link you can share to access Dimension research GPT through UQ sovereignty of is it fully accessible?

# data[].attributes.headline
Using AI in teaching - what would be the steps to follow to start thinking about using AI in the classroom? Any teaching resources / support available? Any groups discussing this at the universities? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Using AI in teaching - what would be the steps to follow to start thinking about using AI in the classroom? Any teaching resources / support available? Any groups discussing this at the universities? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Why Authorship Matters

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

Because authorship does not communicate what contributions qualified an individual to be an author, some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship. The ICMJE has thus developed criteria for authorship that can be used by all journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

2. Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND

Final approval of the version to be published; AND

Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged-see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal's administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete disclosure forms.

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

3. Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study's data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work, how they used it. Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

Next: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can you give us the link or how to access the dimensions research GPT through UQ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can you give us the link or how to access the dimensions research GPT through UQ?

# data[].attributes.headline
AI tends to 'like' to say positive things, or provide positive feedback. I am a little concerned with this tendency in regard to AI review ... your thoughts?

# data[].attributes.subject
AI tends to 'like' to say positive things, or provide positive feedback. I am a little concerned with this tendency in regard to AI review ... your thoughts?

# data[].attributes.headline
If AI search mostly sees open-access content, doesn’t that mean researchers who want their papers to be found by AI need to publish in open-access?

# data[].attributes.subject
If AI search mostly sees open-access content, doesn’t that mean researchers who want their papers to be found by AI need to publish in open-access?

# data[].attributes.headline
Question- if we are peer reviewing, what are some good resources to help us detect AI-slop, or unethical use of AI?

# data[].attributes.subject
Question- if we are peer reviewing, what are some good resources to help us detect AI-slop, or unethical use of AI?

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you think Peer Reviewers (and by default academics) risk undermining their own professional knowledge, aptitude, and skills by relying on AI... instead of taking the time to wrestle with academic papers? Where is the 'neuroplasticity' and critical/creative thinking... and what is being lost... at the cost of speed? Is it really efficient?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you think Peer Reviewers (and by default academics) risk undermining their own professional knowledge, aptitude, and skills by relying on AI... instead of taking the time to wrestle with academic papers? Where is the 'neuroplasticity' and critical/creative thinking... and what is being lost... at the cost of speed? Is it really efficient?

# data[].attributes.headline
If we ran a controlled trial with one cohort of HDR students strongly encouraged to use AI and one cohort strongly discouraged, what outcomes would you predict for each group?

# data[].attributes.subject
If we ran a controlled trial with one cohort of HDR students strongly encouraged to use AI and one cohort strongly discouraged, what outcomes would you predict for each group?

# data[].attributes.headline
Do we need to shift away from the publish and perish model to improve outputs? If so what would that model look like or what would you like it to look like? (blue sky thinking)

# data[].attributes.subject
Do we need to shift away from the publish and perish model to improve outputs? If so what would that model look like or what would you like it to look like? (blue sky thinking)

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishing - Researchers get grants, Researchers/Universities pay APCs (if needed), Peer Review is done for free, publishers let content to libraries, and now publishers are reserving the right to sell publications to LLMs, resulting in authors not having a right on their researches inclusion in AI

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishing - Researchers get grants, Researchers/Universities pay APCs (if needed), Peer Review is done for free, publishers let content to libraries, and now publishers are reserving the right to sell publications to LLMs, resulting in authors not having a right on their researches inclusion in AI

# data[].attributes.headline
Great presentations all! Will all of your slides be sent to attendees today?

# data[].attributes.subject
Great presentations all! Will all of your slides be sent to attendees today?

# data[].attributes.headline
I recently transferred from another Uni and I must really congratulate and applaud the UQ's thesis template and the mandatory table to declare use of AI. It is brilliant. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I recently transferred from another Uni and I must really congratulate and applaud the UQ's thesis template and the mandatory table to declare use of AI. It is brilliant. 

# data[].attributes.headline
I worry that we’re focusing too much on AI as the source of integrity problems, when the bigger problem is that we still measure researchers by how many papers they produce, not how solid or useful those papers are.

# data[].attributes.subject
I worry that we’re focusing too much on AI as the source of integrity problems, when the bigger problem is that we still measure researchers by how many papers they produce, not how solid or useful those papers are.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you have any recommended (preferably free) tools for proofreading students’ work that are also academically safe to use? I’m aware of options like Grammarly and ProWritingAid, but they can be quite costly, so I’m wondering if there are any no-cost, cheap or institutionally provided alternatives you would suggest.

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you have any recommended (preferably free) tools for proofreading students’ work that are also academically safe to use? I’m aware of options like Grammarly and ProWritingAid, but they can be quite costly, so I’m wondering if there are any no-cost, cheap or institutionally provided alternatives you would suggest.

# data[].attributes.headline
More than the proliferation of academic papers for profit, I'm really worried about how these publications then impact future research as they emerge in literature reviews and the methodological design for future work.

# data[].attributes.subject
More than the proliferation of academic papers for profit, I'm really worried about how these publications then impact future research as they emerge in literature reviews and the methodological design for future work.

# data[].attributes.headline
Considering its perceived moral and ethical divorce from responsibility for its construction, compilation and outputs, should AI play any part in academic research? And if so, how does academia reconcile with the barren moral and ethical foundations that AI was built on with the theft of intellectual property?

# data[].attributes.subject
Considering its perceived moral and ethical divorce from responsibility for its construction, compilation and outputs, should AI play any part in academic research? And if so, how does academia reconcile with the barren moral and ethical foundations that AI was built on with the theft of intellectual property?

# data[].attributes.headline
In academia researchers must meet certain quality, confidentiality and ethical benchmarks to "do no harm". AI seems to have been produced without ethical or moral actions, with the mass breach of IP policy and no responsibility or culpability for its output. 

# data[].attributes.subject
In academia researchers must meet certain quality, confidentiality and ethical benchmarks to "do no harm". AI seems to have been produced without ethical or moral actions, with the mass breach of IP policy and no responsibility or culpability for its output. 

# data[].attributes.headline
I was wondering if the university has any recorded training sessions or accompanying PowerPoint slides specifically aimed at prospective PhD candidates on using AI tools to assist with developing and preparing their PhD research proposals?

# data[].attributes.subject
I was wondering if the university has any recorded training sessions or accompanying PowerPoint slides specifically aimed at prospective PhD candidates on using AI tools to assist with developing and preparing their PhD research proposals?

# data[].attributes.headline
With the advent of AI, should there be policy to shape the ethical use of AI in research and research review and evaluation? 

# data[].attributes.subject
With the advent of AI, should there be policy to shape the ethical use of AI in research and research review and evaluation? 

# data[].attributes.headline
If AI is being used to write an article, and AI is being use for peer review, are we looking at a future where some aspects of research can stagnate, or where biases might start to shift research in a particular direction, thus influencing social, scientific, cultural and political policy?

# data[].attributes.subject
If AI is being used to write an article, and AI is being use for peer review, are we looking at a future where some aspects of research can stagnate, or where biases might start to shift research in a particular direction, thus influencing social, scientific, cultural and political policy?

# data[].attributes.body
Please share your questions here. We'll aim to address as many as possible during the event. Thank you.

Presenters:

Will Farmer, Senior Manager, Research Integrity

Martin Cvelbar, Senior Coordinator, Evidence Based Practice

Associate Professor Tatsuya Amano, School of the Environment,

Michael Feeney, Senior Manager, Scholarly Communications and Repository Services

# data[].attributes.body
This event is the second in our Connected Conversations in the Library series. If you missed our first event about the impact of AI on learning and education, you can watch the recording here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Degrees of Disruption: A Critical Conversation on Learning in the Age of AI