Unveil AI Influence
Enhance the review process
Embedded Files
Which models can we detect?
ChatGPT, GPT4, LLaMa, Claude and 30+ AI models
ChatGPT, GPT4, LLaMa, Claude and 30+ AI models
Why us:
We have maximum accuracy, with the least false positives
We have maximum accuracy, with the least false positives
Why we care:
Despite the use of AI, unique human contributions matter
Despite the use of AI, unique human contributions matter
Stance by Journals
Stance by Journals
The AI-generated text in published literature has sparked significant debate.
A consensus has emerged among researchers and academic publishers that AI should not be credited as an author, as it cannot be held accountable for its outputs.
This stance is shared by prominent organizations such as COPE, ICMJE, and WAME, and publishers like Elsevier, IEEE, and Springer.
Avoid Misconduct
Avoid Misconduct
Researchers are expected to declare their use of AI in manuscripts, specifying which sections involved AI assistance
The use of AI-generated content should not disqualify research.
Failure to declare its use constitutes scientific misconduct, akin to plagiarism.
Integrity
Integrity
Transparency regarding AI use is not consistently enforced.
Researchers who fail to disclose AI use risk undermining the integrity of their work, even if the AI’s involvement is minor or undetectable after editing.
As AI tools continue to shape research, ensuring transparency is vital to maintaining academic integrity and ethical standards.
What we provide
What we provide
Simple APIs 🧑💻 to uncover AI usage in Articles
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse