The emergence of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) presents unique challenges to the academic research community. Many researchers are unsure how and when to report their use of such tools, and some even suggest that ChatGPT should be credited as a co-author. An enlightening editorial was recently published (Spanjol & Noble, 2023: Engaging With Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Innovation Management Research—Some Answers and More Questions). The authors shed light on the issue through a survey of the Editorial Review Board members and Associate Editors of the Journal of Product Innovation Management. They conclude that a large majority of respondents are against crediting AI tools as co-authors. In addition, a large majority supports a policy requiring full disclosure of ChatGPT use in journal submissions. Although not written for the SCM research community, the suggestions contained in this editorial effectively transfer and provide much-needed guidance on the nuanced integration of AI tools into academic research.
Spanjol, J., & Noble, C.H. (2023). From the Editors: Engaging With Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Innovation Management Research—Some Answers and More Questions. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 40 (4), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12689
Every departmental coffee machine has probably already witnessed heated discussions on the subject of authorship. Indeed, there are no generally accepted standards for assigning authorship. McNutt and her coauthors (2018) define authorship as follows: “Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND to have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND to have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.” One thing should be said clearly: Providing a few comments on a text certainly does not constitute “substantial contributions” and, thus, authorship – even if you are a supervisor.
The Guardian has just published an interesting opinion piece by van der Kolk, titled Business Education Helps Create a Culture where the Profit Justifies the Means. Herein, the author, who is a university teacher of accounting, writes: “We need to see a much stronger integration of ethical considerations into business education. This is how managers make real-life business decisions. This could be achieved through a discussion on the technics and ethics of transfer pricing in one and the same accounting class, using a case that highlights both aspects. Business education should also challenge its own underlying assumptions about human behaviour, and bring in other disciplines such as the humanities to help students think critically about business practices that are taken for granted.” The author makes an excellent case for accounting, but his arguments certainly also apply for other business disciplines, including supply chain and operations management. If that is the case, how should we change our ways of teaching?
A new research report, provided by Mighty Earth, argues that “[deforestation] is the result of a long supply chain that starts on the South American frontier and ends on European plates”. The report is titled The Avoidable Crisis. It reveals that a small group of companies controls the global agricultural trade: “These companies collectively control the majority of global grain trade […]. In addition to their role in trade, these companies also play a more direct role in driving ecosystem conversion by providing plantation owners with financing, fertilizer, infrastructure, and other incentives for new deforestation to expand their supply base. Given their outsized role, these companies have the power to insist that suppliers protect native ecosystems and land rights. But so far, these companies have prioritized reckless expansion over even easy conservation wins.” The authors argue that “[the] EU must send a strong signal to the market by requiring that companies implement measures for transparency and traceability into their supply chains”.
Today’s post is not about SCM research in specific, but about ethics and academic writing in general. We all know that, in the academic world, plagiarism is evil. I have used the following video to explain to my students what they can do to avoid accidental plagiarism in their theses.
This video covers ethical issues associated with the assignment of academic authorship. It is part of a video series, developed by the Ethics Education Committee of the Academy of Management.