'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/
Absolutely, but from my experience as an author and as a reviewer, not all editors are doing that.
The mud-slingers may be big enough names that the editor doesn't want to chastise the reviewer. It's also possible that the editor is too overworked to be handling manuscripts. It takes time and mental energy to ask a reviewer to tone it down. Its also possible that the editor sees nothing wrong with mudslinging.
@MCDuncanLab There are certainly cases where both editors and reviewers fail at their respective roles. I'm a fan of transparent reviews, one experience that came up often at Review Commons was authors and reviewers praising the more positive overall tone of comment vs conventional journal-based peer review.
@MCDuncanLab I wish I could recall the original source, but someone had commented a while back that it starts from the hypercritical approach nurtured at many lab meetings & journal clubs - the comment was something along the lines of "we are training pitbulls and then are shocked when they tear manuscripts apart".
@MCDuncanLab I'm a big believer in peer review, and having worked at both ends of the process, as a researcher and as an editor, I'd say the majority of reviewers do a difficult, time consuming job (for free) in the right spirit.
