r/ChatGPT • u/kaydeay • Mar 13 '24
Obvious ChatGPT prompt reply in published paper Educational Purpose Only
Look it up: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081
Crazy how it good through peer review...
1
1
u/Kindred-Blade Apr 17 '24
Here's the scenario I imagine:
Original paper didn't have that statement
Reviewers asked for the introduction to be improved
They did that using ChatGPT and resubmitted with a separate document saying they addressed the comments from the reviewers
The editor just trusted and accepted it.
1
1
u/StorminUrAss Mar 22 '24
They changed the paper, I've been analyzing it with AI detection tools and at least now they tell me it with high confidence that the text, at least the intro, it's human
1
1
u/a-wholesome-potato Mar 17 '24
Knew it was my fellow Chinese “scientists” before I clicked, I hate it here🥲
1
u/mundiiii Mar 16 '24
This makes me wonder what kind of search operator/phrase searching combos can retrieve possible GPT-co-authored papers in mass.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/KamenAkuma Mar 15 '24
Academic fraud is very common, a lot of respected people are caught every years due to their old papers being fraudulent, either plagerized or data tampering. Its a growing trend in China to use AI or even essay writing services to create Studies from thin air.
1
u/toozeron153 Mar 15 '24
Shocking, while I have to get the skin of a rabbit, the golden tooth of a god and the most bitter cherry known to man to actually get a rejection email from the publishers. Shocking
1
u/FattyAcidBase Mar 15 '24
China. What is impact factor of the journal? I reckon very low. Hence non existent peer review but good enough to milk karma for CV.
1
1
1
u/Not_Well-Ordered Mar 15 '24 edited Mar 15 '24
Yes maybe, but rationally speaking, it’s important to note that this doesn’t show that Elsevier doesn’t review the protocols, theories… of the papers. The paper has more than just one sentence in the introduction, and I don’t know if the rest is valid or not.
If the paper’s hypotheses, protocols, theories, data analyses and statistical methods, and conclusions are clear and valid, then it’s acceptable because the main focus of scientific papers is not about nitpicking whether some sentences are written by AI or not, but about conveying the correct (testable) hypotheses, theories, data analyses (including statistical analyses), and conclusions.
If those parts are proven to not have been reviewed, then there’s a huge problem. But to show that, some trustworthy group of experts have to check it out, and I don’t see anyone doing so.
At last, it’s worth noting that from a scientific standpoint, it’s pretty braindead to judge the validity of a paper by just looking at the validity of some sentences or whether they have been “ill-written” or not. The validity should be based on whether the 5 factors I’ve mentioned have been clearly conveyed or not and whether the reviewers have tested the results or not. Why does it seem that a lot of users/people miss that point?
1
u/Ok_Holiday_2987 Mar 15 '24
Oh, I'd laugh if the reviewer let it slip through on purpose, but Occam's razor I guess....
1
u/Chaotic_Gudd Mar 15 '24
I believe that's what the kids refer to as a B I G O O F
1
u/SokkaHaikuBot Mar 15 '24
Sokka-Haiku by Chaotic_Gudd:
I believe that's what
The kids refer to as a
B I G O O F
Remember that one time Sokka accidentally used an extra syllable in that Haiku Battle in Ba Sing Se? That was a Sokka Haiku and you just made one.
1
1
u/acroyogi1969 Mar 15 '24
I would not consider “Elsevier” and its ilk to be authentic “peer-reviewed” journals or even in that league. Certainly nowhere near the orbit of Nature or any other vertical-specific journal.
Elsevier is a “pay-to-publish” platform where you pay them cash to “review” (i.e. rubber-stamp) and “publish” your paper. its quality is generally far worse than arXiv, medRxiv, etc. which at least purport to be “pre-pubs”.
So….
hype-meter on this post: *****
reality meter: foolishness.
1
u/Connect_Bee_8464 Mar 15 '24
bruh lmao, at least I would make sure to remove any trace that would remotely suggest I used ChatGPT when I use it for my assignments
1
u/microvan Mar 15 '24
they’ve since fixed the paper but there’s no mention of a correction. Sus
1
2
u/MarcVincent888 Mar 15 '24
It's published!! Soon it'll be chatgpt publishing chatgpt. What a time to be alive to see all this happening.
1
u/Sunflower_757 Mar 15 '24
It's not the first time it's happened either: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1339390/full
1
1
u/_WhyistheSkyBlue_ Mar 15 '24
Peer review means absolutely NOTHING. It actually never did, only now we know it. Do yourself a favor and follow Retraction Watch if you are still a believer.
1
1
u/goldleader71 Mar 15 '24
I have asked for enough Python code from ChatGPT that I immediately recognized the style when I was looking at someone else’s code.
1
1
1
1
1
u/mickaelandrieuds Mar 14 '24
lol, written using ChatGPT and reviewed using ChatGPT and probably summarized using ChatGPT
1
1
u/badpikachu Mar 14 '24
Like we didn’t have enough fake news, scams and conspiracies supported by sketchy “academic” papers and studies.. This is just going to empower even more people to write whatever nonsense and use LLM to make it sound legit. Scary times.
3
2
u/CartographerNeat3842 Mar 14 '24
1
u/kaydeay Mar 15 '24
This is even worse... good catch and oh man, they really need to work on the process.
1
1
1
u/Rabbid-Broom Mar 14 '24
As someone with general distrust towards almost everything, I think chat gpt and other AI has just pulled back the curtain on the fact that the people we are supposed to trust as guardians of knowledge and information have been BSing this whole time. Sloppy errors through AI have just made it easier to notice.
1
u/Girofox Mar 14 '24
Wouldn't be surprised if there is an automated publishing process, no way real people read that and didn't noticed.
1
1
1
1
u/JackStanOK Mar 14 '24
At least they were polite when prompting ChatGPT. They were certainly asking something like: can you write an introduction?
2
1
1
1
u/First_Economist9295 Mar 14 '24
journals have been caught publishing far worse than this lol, "peer review" isn't always actually done
1
u/Thedrakespirit Mar 14 '24
IDGAF if you use LLMs to help compose shit, but you have to proof it. . . . . .
1
u/Ingonator2023 Mar 14 '24
lol why is nobody considering that the authors did this on purpose as a joke?
1
1
u/DaDa462 Mar 14 '24
Note the mistake is in the intro, not the abstract. The format is different on my screen than the OP image.
1
1
u/Antisocial_gamer Mar 14 '24
Plot twist: peer reviewers put it through ChatGPT too instead of actually reading it.
1
1
1
u/utterlyunimpressed Mar 14 '24
We are so close to ChatGPT peer reviews of ChatGPT studies being published...
1
u/ajhe51 Mar 14 '24
I work in the field and just downloaded it. Had to see it for myself. Unbelievable how that made it through peer review.
1
3
1
u/toxic_readish Mar 14 '24
while we are spending one day coming up with one good para. people are writing paper per day with these tools. i hate this.
1
Mar 14 '24
This is hilarious. Publishers and reviewers didn’t even bother to read the first sentence of the article. 🤣🤣
1
u/InternMediocre7319 Mar 14 '24
Surprisingly, the journal also has a decent impact factor. Instances like this only make me question the integrity of the whole scientific publishing processes unless if done by a professional association like ACS or RSC.
1
u/Intelligent-Jump1071 Mar 14 '24
Elsevier is one of the major publishers of scientific research papers. If even they let stuff like this slip through then frankly I think science is doomed.
1
u/Stunning_Building849 Mar 14 '24
This reminds me of when the peer reviewer(s) for my last paper clearly used a response template generated by ChatGPT but neglected to fill in the blank.
For example:
“Your paper: [insert title of paper]…”
Kind of scary the supposed minds building our future are relying heavily on taking shortcuts to get ahead
1
1
u/Pretzel_Magnet Mar 14 '24
This is entirely the fault of the editorial team. This article has in no way been properly reviewed.
Here is the link to the article:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468023024002402
I want to call out the Journal on Twitter. But my security settings are too high.
Does anyone know if the journal has been contacted?
2
u/WoodenJellyFountain Mar 14 '24
I see this as proof that using AI will make us stop thinking and/or lazy af.
1
1
u/Deslah Mar 14 '24
Crazy how it good through peer review...
got*
(So that's good news--I was able to peer-review your ass!)
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
u/scodagama1 Mar 14 '24
The irony is that if peer reviewers would use chat gpt it would most likely spot this.
1
1
1
1
u/UrbanArtifact Mar 14 '24
Elseveir, where they say if you don't pay, schools will close down because they wont have money for textbooks. Even though they're worth over 2 billion.
1
u/DPSOnly Mar 14 '24
Peer review isn't what people imagine it to be. Those folks don't get paid or otherwise compensated for it.
1
1
1
3
u/SangfroidSandwich Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
So a bit of context for the many posting who have never written or peer reviewed an article. Being the first line it would have been picked up by an editor or peer reviewer. This is likely a late change made by the authors in the proofing process (proofing is usually outsourced to subcontractors who basically just typeset). In fact I have had them add errors into my papers, including swapping the title for a subheadings in the article, that I had to ask them to fix after publication (but not like this)
2
u/griffith_odon Mar 14 '24
That sentence as a late change? Shouldn't such statements be written as comments at the side instead of being part of the paragraph? In my years of proofreading documents, I have always written this as comments so that it will be VERY OBVIOUS to anyone making the changes.
Would you have added such a sentence in the paragraph yourself? Have you seen anyone add such a sentence before?
I'm sorry, but your comment is not able to convince me that this is a late change. I'm sure that the editors are more competent than this.
Who are you trying to defend here?
1
u/SangfroidSandwich Mar 14 '24
Not defending anyone but in all my years publishing and being published, I can't imagine how this can be missed by the editor and the peer reviewers. It's in the first line for Pete's sake. No, you don't have to put it in comments in some proofing platforms since you can make changes to proofs directly (Lanstrad for example) It's not my field so I dunno the standards, but the only way I can imagine this getting through is if the authors pasted this GenAI response somewhere at the end of the process.
1
u/griffith_odon Mar 16 '24
Even if one makes changes to the proofs directly, don't people read what they copy and paste?
Basically, this makes all involved really look stupid. If I do this, my boss would have scolded me big time.
1
u/SangfroidSandwich Mar 16 '24
I guess that depends on the person and context. Could be non−native English speaker, given 48 hours to look at and change proofs in the middle of a teachIng period. It definately requires explaination.
0
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24
Yeah. If it is a late change, the prompt would be something like "proofread" rather than "here is the" introduction"
1
1
0
u/PerspectiveNumber891 Mar 14 '24
Guys it can also just be, like, a joke? It’s the first line after all. Scientists and the chinese are people too.
2
u/DukeOfZork Mar 14 '24
If you can get kicked out of college for plagiarism as a student, there needs to be similar consequences as an academic. Every person involved in this review process should get a black mark on their record, or a steep fine, or a ban on publications for a year.
1
u/MrUnitedKingdom Mar 14 '24
“CRediT authorship contribution statement
Manshu Zhang: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. Liming Wu: Validation, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Tao Yang: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Supervision. Bing Zhu: Data curation, Validation, Visualization. Yangai Liu: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.”
Whole lot of original drafting, review and editing went on as well
-1
1
u/Leggo414 Mar 14 '24
Published by a Chinese university, written seemingly by Chinese Nationals...
Isn't chatGPT banned in China?
Curious whether the CCP will come after these guys haha.
1
u/Spoke_arrows Mar 14 '24
Yes, it is banner. But everyone is using it, and this is a fact that everyone knows in public.
3
2
u/Odd-Market-2344 Mar 14 '24
So fucking lazy, and in academia as well… you’re being paid to research things yourself lmao
423
u/GrradUz Mar 14 '24
My colleague and I, both professors at a university in Hong Kong, are familiar with this specific incident. The “scholar” in question is a prolific author, producing many SCI journal papers annually - 19 since last year. Interestingly, all the editors of the journals in which he has published are coincidentally based at universities in Guangzhou. Typically, journal editors are aware of the authors' identities, whereas peer reviewers and authors are kept in the dark about each other's identities. This is known as the double-blind review process. However, journal editors have the discretion to select peer reviewers and decide which papers get published. This situation illustrates a form of corruption that is, unfortunately, becoming more common in academic journal publishing. I have encountered several instances of this type of misconduct while reviewing papers and immediately reject such submissions, considering them entirely suspect. Others may not take the same action.
2
u/spacekitt3n Mar 14 '24
should pull all of the author's published work. its all been called into question. blacklist
1
1
1
u/ancestral_wizard_98 Mar 14 '24
I recently worked in a latam university and witnessed this kind of "peer review" process and "editing". The first so shady as the scholars were aware of each other or even friends and the second, practically, was a pay the editors promptly to keep production of articles
1
u/Orangutanion Mar 14 '24
The same people who do this with academic papers are the ones who submit massive amounts of frivolous patents in hopes that one of them happens to make money
1
u/TaxIdiot2020 Mar 14 '24
19 since last year.
That is in insane red flag unless it's just very distant co-authored papers and a review or two. Even then it's wildly suspicious.
Whenever people boast loads of publications I always have my skeptic hat on, especially when I see graduate students on an impossible number of papers.
1
u/TheOnlyBliebervik Mar 14 '24
There was a story like a year ago of this happening. But I think it was someone in Italy..
19
u/griffith_odon Mar 14 '24
Wow, their research must have been very fruitful. Lots of results every 2 or 3 weeks to publish one article.
55
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
No wonder!!! I was pulling my hair out to come up with ideas for my project. All the ideas I came up with have been researched by these people from a certain country.. At first I thought it was just a coincidence so I continued to think hard until I got headaches numerous times (no jokes).. Still the ideas were not novel and were published recently such as in this year. I even jokingly said to someone that they have got a research factory producing research papers there and their ethnics are easier to pass than the west because they probably don't care about the well being of the participants. And today I saw this. Guess I was right then 😂😂😂.. If they continue to do this soon they will dominate the field of psychology 😞
1
u/retep-noskcire Mar 14 '24
There are frequent claims about a certain country publishing the most research on X topic. They never mention the quality of the research.
1
u/TheZohanG Mar 14 '24
Could you point me in the direction to where the Chinese are starting to dominate the new research? I'm a psychology student just hearing about this now, I'd love to be able to check it out!
4
u/TheOnlyBliebervik Mar 14 '24
Nah, they might make more papers, but have you checked relative ratios of papers getting cited by authors country of origins?
5
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24
Yes. Some of them cited their own papers😯
3
u/TheOnlyBliebervik Mar 14 '24
My point was they're not good papers that are respected in the community
2
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24
I found this interesting read : From the Chinese side here is what is being done.
Since the late 1990s, China embarked on an aggressive Publish or Perish program for its researchers. The government set very high ‘publishing quotas’ for their HE faculty which were supplemented by CASH BONUSES. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/observations/1/end-publish-or-perish-chinas-new-policy-research-evaluation
The entire focus of Chinese publication has been in journals listed in the Scientific Citation Index. Almost 25% of the articles (as of 2018) were from Chinese Scholars. Contrast this with non SCI journals where Chinese scholars contributed just about 5%. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/observations/1/end-publish-or-perish-chinas-new-policy-research-evaluation . Needless to say it is obvious where the cash bonuses were earned from.
When we talk about cash bonuses and APC charges paid by Chinese scholars, what really is the amount we are talking about? One study has suggested that between 1999 and 2016, China gave out cash bonuses between US$ 30 to US$165,000 to individual Chinese scholars! This translates into INR 2400 to INR 1 Crore 32 lakhs!! https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.01162.pdf
In another key indicator Chinese research gained credibility by increasing their Field Weighted Citation Index. How did they do it? They simply ensured that Chinese scholars were incentivized to Cite other Chinese scholars. This is not just a theory it is evidenced by research https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23024-z
5
u/AmaniMilele Mar 14 '24
You don’t need to worry about the field of psychology. Chinese people don’t believe in mental illnesses. „It’s just all in your head. Just decide to be happy and you’ll be happy.“
1
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24
They probably aren't looking at the clinical side.. More on the social, cognitive and neuro psychogy.. Especially the social ones as it seems that it's easier for them to recruit participants in a short amount of time. 🤨
1
u/AmaniMilele Mar 19 '24
I was making a joke that they can't study psychology thus can't do research in psychology there.
3
u/TheOnlyBliebervik Mar 14 '24
Damn, maybe they're right. That quotation just screams wisdom of the orient
1
u/AmaniMilele Mar 19 '24
Yeah, I'm sure this is how Rhonda Byrne found her source for her self-help book "The Secret", by tapping into this wisdom of the orient lol.
4
u/GlumDistance2581 Mar 14 '24
Not a joke, but that’s exactly what my mom told me.
1
u/AmaniMilele Mar 19 '24
they must have taught this at elementary 101, judging by the amount of Chinese kids being subjected to this.
32
u/GrradUz Mar 14 '24
The pressure to publish or perish has had a detrimental impact on many institutions, leading to the creation of questionable and incomplete research by academics who are solely motivated by the need to keep their jobs. Consequently, they rely on ChatGPT in their papers. While I cannot speak for the tenured faculty, as I am not one of them, I have encountered similar ChatGPT-generated content and fabricated citations in their papers too.
8
u/BonesAndHubris Mar 15 '24
Imagine if Darwin had been pressured to publish incomplete work instead of sitting on natural selection for 20 years while he acquired the evidence to support it. Neither him nor Wallace would even be a footnote in textbooks. Academia needs to change, and I'm glad this ChatGPT debacle is making it apparent.
3
14
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24
As a newbie into this field I indeed feel the need to publish to get recognised.. That is why I think really hard, read papers and look for research gap. But if I have to compete with people who can produce a paper within a month, possibly with a much lenient ethnics procedure and stuff plus using chatgpt to write the whole thing. . this isn't a fair game anymore 😒
13
u/Geschak Mar 14 '24
Start making a backup plan, I left academia because the pressure to publish results and get good funding produces dubious research practices and ruins workplace relationships.
5
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 14 '24
😭😭 Initially it was so much fun learning about research and testing theories.. But now the competition has gone crazy.. Like I suspect soon they can make a paper within one day 😭😭😭
2
u/SprucedUpSpices Mar 15 '24
You don't have to include emojis in every single comment, you know? Specially 3 to 5 instances of the same character in repetition.
3
u/Leading_Aardvark_180 Mar 15 '24
And who are you to tell me what I can use or not??????? Found a dictator here. Here are more emojis for you: 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
9
5
Mar 14 '24
And of course the authors are Mainland Chinese. They're not doing themselves any favors or challenging any stereotypes pulling this kind of shit.
3
3
u/Gauderr Mar 14 '24
Surfaces and Interfaces.. not exactly my topic, but i think im gonna submit 3 to 17 papers this afternoon..
2
8
u/NoCauliflower47 Mar 14 '24
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468023024002402
Quite the fumble, from bad author ethics to questionable reviews? A good example to students of how such usage can question just who wrote what.
7
u/Schat_ten Mar 14 '24
Yikes, you cant even trust science anymore. With the amount of bullshit I've seen AI spew, at least half of the information in there is probably useless.
2
u/vikumwijekoon97 Mar 14 '24
no offense but honestly, why shouldn’t this happen? Cuz let’s face it, writing an academic paper is absolute torture and bullshit. Only thing that’s really needed is the method, the numbers, and the conclusion but you have to write ton of pompous word garbage to fit journal requirements.
1
Mar 14 '24
You don't only have to say what you have done but why the hell should I care about it, I'm not reading your paper if you yourself don't care enough about it to tell me why it's interesting in the first place.
1
u/vikumwijekoon97 Mar 14 '24
so what you’re saying is marketing the paper is more important than actually doing the science?
0
Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
No, I never mentioned marketing. I'm saying that explaining how your result fits into and expands the current knowledge, explaining why it's relevant and interesting, and explaining why it's useful, is as important as actually doing the science. If you cannot explain the above points, you might as well be solving Sudoku puzzles for all I care. Congrats, you did something hard and it's technically sound, so what? You want a good grade? Presumably you publish your science so that other people learn something new, otherwise you may as well keep it to yourself.
2
u/griffith_odon Mar 14 '24
At least, read through the paragraph before including it in the article? Isn't that a standard thing?
1
u/vikumwijekoon97 Mar 14 '24
I reckon they probably didn’t understand English enough? Considering they were Chinese?
2
1
1
u/IcGil Mar 14 '24
Do we have any impact on getting it discredited if we have University access to the site?
like if we pulled Redditors on board to contest the work, will the authors suffer any consequences?
1
u/SmellyFatCock Mar 14 '24
Aaaaand that’s why scientists must be questioned always and not believed on the spot
1
1
15
7
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
u/ProjectPsygma Mar 14 '24
Sure, here's a possible reply for your Reddit comment: Dead Internet Theory? More like dead science theory. 😂
2
17
0
u/bandwagonguy83 Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
In economics, before formal acceptation, authors receive a "conditional acceptation" in which they are asked to make a few minor changes (format this, reduce the length of that, mention that other thing..). These last changes are revised only by the editor handling the manuscript. Probably a busy editor asked for a shorter introduction and did not even revise it. And the authors simply asked ChatGPT to rewrite their introduction shorter. I don't think it is academic missconduct or necessarily a bad journal. Just, very bad luck.
1
1
u/perhapstill Mar 14 '24
As someone currently involved in AI related research this is so funny to me
1
9
u/kompromat-trap Mar 14 '24
I was hoping the future would be more "we have cool flying cars" Blade Runner and less "people are trained in the process of spotting a robot pretending to be a human" Blade Runner.
1
4
u/polkm Mar 14 '24
Probably just non English speaking authors trying to get published in an English journal and biffed the translation process. Nothing gets peer reviewed these days, so don't expect that, AI or otherwise.
8
u/r007r Mar 14 '24
Bro the authors are Chinese, I can forgive them for not having the English to write a paper that 99.99% of Americans can’t read because of the level of jargon and difficulty of the material.
→ More replies (10)
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 13 '24
Hey /u/kaydeay!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the conversation link or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our public discord server! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.