The active use of neural networks in scientific work raises the question of whether AI systems can be considered full co-authors in publications. As explained by scientists from Samara University, there are already instances in global practice where AI is listed among the authors of scientific articles, and in some cases, as the sole creator of the work. According to them, there are at least two publications in the “Scopus” database where, in one instance, a chatbot was later removed from the author list at the request of the journal editors. The scientists’ findings suggest that the traditional concept of authorship in the context of generative AI requires revision. Here, the human role includes being a creator, curator, editor, and translator. The scientists paid particular attention to the ethical issues associated with generative AI in writing scientific texts. There are known risks of academic fraud, for example, when someone presents AI-generated content as their own, without taking on the role of editor and responsible author. Maslennikova added, “Our results can form the basis for ethical and legal standards that enhance transparency in the use of AI and prevent its misuse. This is particularly important in educational, scientific, and media fields, where the question of who is responsible for AI-generated content arises.” According to the scientists, the novelty of their work lies not only in legal analysis but also in a comprehensive approach that combines philosophical, social, cultural, and legal analysis. The researchers link modern work practices with theories of distributed and networked authorship, allowing for a deeper understanding of the evolving roles of humans and machines in text creation.
