Before deciding to use Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools in your research, always check with your research supervisor to make sure that it’s permissible, and that your intended use won’t breach the University’s research codes and policies, including the Research Conduct and Governance Policy.
In addition, you must ensure that any use of GenAI tools does not breach the relevant funder’s policies. Check the policies from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, on the use of generative AI in their funded research.
Gen AI enables different ways of interacting with source materials and presents a range of opportunities for research. For example:
It could be used as a research tool if GenAI is integrated within library search tools
GenAI could assist researchers when communicating to broader audiences, using non-academic language. For example, a researcher could use these tools to draft easily digestible newsletter text.
GenAI could help researchers undertake their research by developing code, generating test cases or interview questions, or helping with the design of surveys or testing methodologies.
Note that the University of Canberra does not endorse these tools. Refer to GenAI at UC for the University’s current position on the use of generative AI tools.
These tools are free but you will need to create an account for most of them. Please read the Terms of Use and Conditions before using these tools.
Some free GenAI tools for research include:
Research Rabbit (currently free) is a literature review mapping tool and discovery platform for researchers, with the aim of making it easier to discover relevant papers.
Consensus (free option available) uses AI to find answers in research papers.
Elicit (free option available) is a research tool using large language models to automate parts of researchers’ workflows. It is useful for empirical research like randomised controlled trials. Elicit will display relevant papers and summaries of key information about those papers in an easy-to-use table.
Connected Papers is a visual tool to help researchers find and explore papers relevant to their field of work. It analyses approximately 50,000 papers from Semantic Scholar to create a graph, and then selects the most relevant papers.
Scite offers a quantitative and qualitative insight into how publications cite each other.
Inciteful has developed two tools to date. Paper Discovery builds a network of papers from one seed paper. It uses network analysis algorithms to find similar papers, important papers, as well as prolific authors and institutions. Literature Connector helps interdisciplinary scholars bridge two domains. It allows users to enter two papers and it will generate an interactive visualisation map showing you how they are connected by the literature.
Iris is a comprehensive platform for literature reviews. It offers a Smart Search and a wide range of filters, reading list analysis, auto-generated summaries, autonomous extraction and formatting of data. Users with premium subscriptions have access to these functions.
Litmaps generates an interactive map of relevant articles that relate to a seed paper.
Text generators
Microsoft Copilot - licensed by the University
ChatGPT 3.5 (free, but its data mining stopped in 2021 so it may not provide up to date information)
ChatGPT 4.0 (available for a fee. Differs from version 3.5 as it may provide more up-to-date responses, but is not connected to the internet)
Gemini (Google's generative AI tool, previously known as BARD)
Image generators
Dall-E - accessible via Microsoft Copilot which is licensed by the University
Niji Journey (note that this link may not work in Chrome, and you might have to try another browser)
Firefly - accessed via Adobe Express
In addition to text generation tools, there are many other types of tools available:
Music generation tools
e.g. Jukebox, MusicGen, Lyria, Filmora
Video generation tools
e.g. Pictory, Invideo, Synthesia
Code generation tools
e.g. CodeStarter, Codex, GitHub Copilot, Tabnine
Tools for Literature searching and Literature review, see below:
|
Tool |
Data source | Cost | Literature searching |
Interactive citation network map |
Full-text analysing and summarising | Generating answers to research questions | Integration with referencing software |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research Rabbit | Semantic Scholar | Free | By similarity and citation chain | Yes, by early work, later work and similar work | No | No | Sync with Zotero and import/export RIS files |
| Elicit | Semantic Scholar | Cost involved | By similarity and citation chain | No | Yes | Yes | Import/export RIS files |
| Iris | Semantic Scholar, PubMed and some European repositories | Cost involved | By similarity and citation chain | No | Yes | Yes | Import/export RIS files |
| Scite | Semantic Scholar, PubMed and various publishers | Cost involved | By similarity and citation chain | Yes, by supporting and contrasting papers | Yes | Yes |
Sync with Zotero and Mendeley Import/export RIS files |
| Connected Papers | Semantic Scholar | Cost involved | By similarity and citation chain | Yes | No | No | Import/export RIS files |
| InCiteful | Semantic Scholar | Free | By similarity and citation chain | Yes | No | No | Import/export RIS files |
| LitMaps | Semantic Scholar | Cost involved | By similarity and citation chain | Yes | No | No |
Import/export RIS file |
(Table source for attribution: https://libguides.mq.edu.au/c.php?g=964425&p=7005713
You can also keep up with the new generative AI tools by using Gen AI: There's an AI for that )
The GenAI environment is rapidly evolving. No major publishers currently permit GenAI tools to be an author. GenAI tools cannot carry out the role of, or be listed as, an author of an article including making a substantial contribution, approval a final version or being accountable for accuracy and integrity. These tasks require knowledge of the subject, critical thinking, analysis, and interpretation of data.
GenAI content is not considered capable of initiating an original piece of research without direction from human authors. It also raises issues of plagiarism as there is no guarantee that content is original and not copied from existing sources. Several tests have also revealed that GenAI tools are not capable of effectively creating a literature review (e.g. by generating incorrect or made-up references and DOIs).
Some publishers do not permit the use of GenAI tools to author scientific articles but allow some use in prewriting activities. See the Publisher guidelines table below for some examples of publisher policies.
If you are writing with the intention of publishing your work, you should check the publisher's information page to check whether using generative AI for article preparation is allowed.
If you are permitted to use generative AI tools for any part of your research, you must acknowledge this openly in your research documentation.
Publisher guidelines
Use the links below to check different publishers’ statements on the use of GenAI tools to produce content for publication. This is not a comprehensive nor final list. Check both the publisher, and the specific journal for their policy. Note also guidelines for images as well as text, as the use of GenAI images, is often explicitly not permitted.
Please ensure you also check the publisher website as these guidelines may have been updated.
Selected guideline excerpts
|
Publisher |
List as author |
Notes on use |
|
No |
AI must be declared and clearly explained in publications. Authors are accountable for integrity in papers, including use of AI and any AI use must not breach plagiarism policy. |
|
|
Elsevier |
No |
Text: Can use in writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of the paper. Human oversight recommended. This requires appropriate disclosure at bottom of paper in a section before the references. Authors responsible and accountable for contents of work. Exception: Use of AI tools to analyse and draw insights from data as part of research process. Images: Create or alter images including enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure. Adjustments of brightness, contrast or colour balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Image forensics tools might be applied to identify suspected image irregularities. Exception: use as part of research design or research methods. Use must be described in a reproducible manner in the methods section (including name of model, version, extension numbers and manufacturer). Use in production of artworks (e.g. for journal covers) is not permitted. |
|
No |
Text: The generation or reporting of results using an AI tool is not permissible. The in-text reporting of statistics using an AI tool is not permissible. Images: The submission and publication of images created by AI tools is not permitted. Permissible: Using a generative AI tool to improve its language and readability would be permissible (this feature mirrors standard tools already used to improve spelling and grammar) |
|
|
No |
The use of artificial intelligence-generated text in an article shall be disclosed in the acknowledgements section of any paper submitted to an IEEE Conference or Periodical. The sections of the paper that use AI-generated text shall have a citation to the AI system used to generate the text. |
|
|
No |
Text: Clearly indicate the use of language models in the manuscript. Provide a list of sources used to generate content. Be conscious of plagiarism with AU using text that can be reproduced from other sources. Verify the accuracy, validity and appropriateness of the content. |
|
|
Science Journals |
No |
Text: Text generated from AI cannot be used in papers. Images: (including figures, images or graphics) not permitted for use without explicit permission from editor. Violation of policy constitutes scientific misconduct. |
|
Springer |
No |
Images and videos: created by AI tools not permitted. Images or videos directly referencing AI in an article about AI may be permitted. Reviewed on case-by-case basis. Non-generative tools to manipulate, combine or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed to allow case-by-case review. Exceptions: Images/art obtained from agencies that have contractual relationships that have created images in a legally accepted manner. The use of large language models (LLMs) should be properly documented in the methods section or in a suitable alternative part of the manuscript. |
|
Taylor & Francis |
No |
Use of AI based tools is not in line with authorship criteria. Authors are responsible for originality, validity and integrity of content. If AI tools are used, they must be acknowledged and documented appropriately. |
|
No |
Text: Use with acknowledgement. If author has used tool to develop part of a manuscript, they must describe transparently and in detail in the methods or acknowledgement sections. If using AI, the author is fully responsible for accuracy of information and referencing sources correctly. Final decision about whether use is appropriate is determined by the journal editor. Permissible: tools that improve spelling, grammar and general editing. |
(Source for attribution: Uni of Adelaide https://libguides.adelaide.edu.au/c.php?g=959585&p=6965123 )
AI and Scholarly Publishing: A View from Three Experts
Post from Scholarly Kitchen, official blog of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, discusses recent developments on AI and current trends in scholarly publishing.
Best Practices for Using AI When Writing Scientific Manuscripts.
A brief summary of some of the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT (and future AI language bots) and a set of recommendations of best practices for scientists when using such tools at any stage of their research, particularly at the manuscript writing stage.
Using AI to Write Scholarly Publications
Discusses issues of research ethics and integrity regarding the use of AI in preparing research publications.
ChatGPT: Five priorities for research
Comment article in Nature Journal, 03 February 2023, discussing implications of ChatGPT on science research.
Grant funding bodies have recently released guidelines on the use of generative AI in grant applications and application peer review process. Some key documents are:
NHMRC Policy on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Grant Applications and Peer Review
The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) may present a number of opportunities and challenges for grant applicants and peer reviewers. This document NHMRC’s policy on the use of generative AI.
ARC Policy on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the ARC’s grants programs
This document provides guidance for researchers, Administering Organisations, and peer reviewers including all Detailed and General Assessors engaged in the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) National Competitive Grants Program in relation to the use of generative AI tools.
In grants/funding applications, applicants and administering organisations should be responsible for the contents they submit to the grant funding agency, and they should avoid breaches of codes and policies issued by the funding agency.
In assessments and peer review activities, assessors and reviewers should follow the guidelines provided by the funding agency and avoid breaches of codes and policies issued by the funding agency.
Always check the latest guidelines provided by funding agencies.
|
Key Funding Agencies |
For applicants (individuals and organisations) |
For officials and assessors/reviewers |
|
Concerns/criteria |
• research ethics |
• fairness |
|
ARC advises applicants to use caution in relation to the use of generative AI tools in developing their grant applications. |
Prohibited |
|
|
1. to exercise caution when using generative AI tools in application preparation |
Prohibited |
|
|
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
||
|
1. are responsible for their submitted contents. |
Prohibited |
|
|
no breaches of policies |
no breaches of policies |
|
|
European Commission (Horizon Europe, etc.) 1. Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research |
use generative AI ethically and responsibly |
Prohibited |
|
In principle, the Humboldt Foundation welcomes the use of AI as an aid, also in the application process. For the time being, we do not require applicants to identify use. Generative AI can be used meaningfully and productively, for example as a formulation aid. In the international science system that is dominated by English it is particularly helpful for non-native speakers who constitute a large proportion of the Humboldt Foundation’s global target group |
|
|
|
AI tools should be used responsibly and in accordance with relevant legal and ethical standards, and it must be clearly cited and acknowledged. |
Prohibited |