By now, several major publishers have implemented policies on GPT-like models. Exactly what they cover varies, but there is at least a consensus that such models cannot be listed as co-authors. Policies allowing the use of such models do require the use to be properly disclosed and documented.
In a Jan 24, 2023 editorial Springer-Nature announced their policy:
Authors. Corresponding author(s) should be identified with an asterisk. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript.
In a Jan 26, 2023 editorial the Science journals announced an update to their policy:
Artificial intelligence (AI) policy: Text generated from AI, machine learning, or similar algorithmic tools cannot be used in papers published in Science journals, nor can the accompanying figures, images, or graphics be the products of such tools, without explicit permission from the editors. In addition, an AI program cannot be an author of a Science journal paper. A violation of this policy constitutes scientific misconduct.
On or before Jan 26, 2023 Elsevier instituted a related policy. Their publishing ethics page now contains:
Where authors use AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work and not to replace key researcher tasks such as producing scientific insights, analyzing and interpreting data or drawing scientific conclusions. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. The authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.
Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author.
On Feb 17, 2013 Taylor and Francis announced an update to their policies that:
AI tools must not be listed as an author. Authors must, however, acknowledge all sources and contributors included in their work. Where AI tools are used, such use must be acknowledged and documented appropriately.
On Feb 21, 2023 PNAS announced an update to their policy:
Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work. The corresponding author must have obtained permission from all authors for the submission of each version of the paper and for any change in authorship. Use of artificial intelligence (AI) software, such as ChatGPT, must be noted in the Materials and Methods (or Acknowledgments, if no Materials and Methods section is available) section of the manuscript and may not be listed as an author.
Similarly, Oxford University Press has the policy:
Note: Neither symbolic figures such as Camille Noûs nor natural language processing tools driven by artificial intelligence (AI) such as ChatGPT qualify as authors, and OUP will screen for them in author lists. The use of AI (for example, to help generate content, write code, or analyze data) must be disclosed both in cover letters to editors and in the Methods or Acknowledgements section of manuscripts.
This isn't even limited to journal publishers. In a Jan 31, 2023 blog post, arXiv announced a policy stating that they
continue to require authors to report in their work any significant use of sophisticated tools, such as instruments and software; we now include in particular text-to-text generative AI among those that should be reported consistent with subject standards for methodology.
remind all colleagues that by signing their name as an author of a paper, they each individually take full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. If generative AI language tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s).
generative AI language tools should not be listed as an author; instead authors should refer to (1).