'Imagine my surprise when I received reviews on a submitted paper declaring that it was the work of ChatGPT. One reviewer wrote that it was “obviously ChatGPT”, and the handling editor vaguely agreed, saying that they found “the writing style unusual”. Surprise was just one emotion I experienced; I also felt shock, dismay and a flood of confusion and alarm. Given how much work I put into writing, it was a blow to be accused of being a chatbot — especially without any evidence.'
Wow. I disagree with the decision by journals that authors can't use ChatGPT to help convey their scientific discoveries more clearly.
I don't understand how it's any different than hiring an editor--something many journals recommend to authors of poorly written articles. Sure ChatGPT might make something up, but a scientific editor can similarly misunderstand the original draft and write something nonsensical.
Either way, it's up to the author to validate the product.
I wonder if the reviewer comment 'this was written by ChatGPT' is going to replace 'get a native English speaker to edit it'.
Reviewers, please, don't do either.
I get it, some papers are badly written. As a reviewer, you want to help the author convey their science, but either phrase assumes something that might not be true.
Just be factual in your review, 'I struggled to understand the conclusions because the writing was unclear.'
I see some reviewers being very condescending to authors.
In addition to accusing authors of not speaking English, I've seen reviewers say that the writing is 'sloppy' or so bad as to be insulting to the reader.
Reviewers, please don't do that!
It's unnecessary and hurtful. It may make the editor and author less likely to accept your review as unbiased.
I'd advise sticking to the facts. I struggled to understand, I was confused, I felt the word choice made it hard to read.
@MCDuncanLab As a former editor, I'd add that this is also a failure of journal editors - who should review reviews (and reviewers).
@MCDuncanLab A good editor will step in when the reviewers are taking personal shots, making inappropriate comments etc Sometime it can even undermine a review that makes important points about the work. There's a good case in this episode of the #EMBOPodcast, where then @embojournal editor Karin Dumstrei & I discussed one such case with the authors. https://www.embo.org/podcasts/the-band-and-the-rhythm/
@MCDuncanLab @embojournal This was a case where the tone of the reviewer undermined valid concerns - that could have been phrased in a constructive manner. Thanks to the transparent review files, you can dig into how it played out (I think these are great case studies to discuss with students and postdocs, perhaps even have them re-write certain comments as a workshop exercise). https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embj.2023114164
