… Or not, according to what language is allowed.

At the start of the year I mentioned that I am on a bad roll with AI just now, and the start of that roll began in late November when I received reviews back on a paper. One reviewer sent in a 150 word review saying it was written by chatGPT. The editor echoed, “One reviewer asserted that the work was created with ChatGPT. I don’t know if this is the case, but I did find the writing style unusual ….” What exactly was unusual was not explained.

That was November 20th. By November 22nd my computer shows a file created named ‘tryingtoproveIamnotchatbot,’ which is just a txt where I pasted in the GitHub commits showing progress on the paper. I figured maybe this would prove to the editors that I did not submit any work by chatGPT.

I didn’t. There are many reasons for this. One is I don’t think that I should. Further, I suspect chatGPT is not so good at this (rather specific) subject and between me and my author team, I actually thought we were pretty good at this subject. And I had met with each of the authors to build the paper, its treatise, data and figures. We had a cool new meta-analysis of rootstock x scion experiments and a number of interesting points. Some of the points I might even call exciting, though I am biased. But, no matter, the paper was the product of lots of work and I was initially embarrassed, then gutted, about the reviews.

Once I was less embarrassed I started talking timidly about it. I called Andrew. I told folks in my lab. I got some fun replies. Undergrads in my lab (and others later) thought the review itself may have been written by chatGPT. Someone suggested I rewrite the paper with chatGPT and resubmit. Another that I just write back one line: I’m Bing.

What I took away from this was myriad, but I came up with a couple next steps. I decided this was not a great peer review process that I should reach out to the editor (and, as one co-author suggested, cc the editorial board). And another was to not be so mortified as to not talk about this.

What I took away from these steps were two things:

1) chatGPT could now control my language.

I connected with a senior editor on the journal. No one is a good position here, and the editor and reviewers are volunteering their time in a rapidly changing situation. I feel for them and for me and my co-authors. The editor and I tried to bridge our perspectives. It seems he could not have imagined that I or my co-authors would be so offended. And I could not have imagined that the journal already had a policy of allowing manuscripts to use chatGPT, as long as it was clearly stated.

I was also given some language changes to consider, so I might sound less like chatGPT to reviewers. These included some phrases I wrote in the manuscript (e.g. `the tyranny of terroir’). Huh. So where does that end? Say I start writing so I sound less to the editor and others ‘like chatGPT’ (and I never figured out what that means), then chatGPT digests that and then what? I adapt again? Do I eventually come back around to those phrases once they have rinsed out of the large language model?

2) Editors are shaping the language around chatGPT.

Motivated by a co-author’s suggestion, I wrote a short reflection which recently came out in a careers column. I much appreciate the journal recognizing this as an important topic and that they have editorial guidelines to follow for clear and consistent writing. But I was surprised by the concerns from the subeditors on my language. (I had no idea my language was such a problem!)

This problem was that I wrote: I’ve been mistaken for a chatbot (and similar language). The argument was that I had not been mistaken — my writing had been. The debate that ensued was fascinating. If I had been in a chatroom and this happened, then I could write `I’ve been mistaken for a chatbot’ but since my co-authors and I wrote this up and submitted it to a journal, it was not part of our identities. So I was over-reaching in my complaint. I started to wonder: if I could not say ‘I was mistaken for an AI bot’ — why does the chatbot get ‘to write’? I went down an existential hole, from which I have not fully recovered.

And since then I am still mostly existing there. On the upbeat side, writing the reflection was cathartic and the back and forth with the editors — who I know are just trying to their jobs too — gave me more perspectives and thoughts, however muddled. And my partner recently said to me, “perhaps one day it will be seen as a compliment to be mistaken for a chatbot, just not today!”

Also, since I don’t know an archive that takes such things so I will paste the original unedited version below.

I have just been accused of scientific fraud. It’s not data fraud (which, I guess, is a relief because my lab works hard at data transparency, data sharing and reproducibility). What I have just been accused of is writing fraud. This hurts, because—like many people—I find writing a paper a somewhat painful process.

Like some people, I comfort myself by reading books on how to write—both to be comforted by how much the authors of such books stress that writing is generally slow and difficult, and to find ways to improve my writing. My current writing strategy involves willing myself to write, multiple outlines, then a first draft, followed by much revising. I try to force this approach on my students, even though I know it is not easy, because I think it’s important we try to communicate well.

Imagine my surprise then when I received reviews back that declared a recently submitted paper of mine a chatGPT creation. One reviewer wrote that it was `obviously Chat GPT’ and the handling editor vaguely agreed, saying that they found `the writing style unusual.’ Surprise was just one emotion I had, so was shock, dismay and a flood of confusion and alarm. Given how much work goes into writing a paper, it was quite a hit to be accused of being a chatbot—especially in short order without any evidence, and given the efforts that accompany the writing of almost all my manuscripts.

I hadn’t written a word of the manuscript with chatGPT and I rapidly tried to think through how to prove my case. I could show my commits on GitHub (with commit messages including `finally writing!’ and `Another 25 mins of writing progress!’ that I never thought I would share), I could try to figure out how to compare the writing style of my pre-chatGPT papers on this topic to the current submission, maybe I could ask chatGPT if it thought I it wrote the paper…. But then I realized I would be spending my time trying to prove I am not a chatbot, which seemed a bad outcome to the whole situation. Eventually, like all mature adults, I decided what I most wanted to do was pick up my ball (manuscript) and march off the playground in a small fury. How dare they?

Before I did this, I decided to get some perspectives from others—researchers who work on data fraud, co-authors on the paper and colleagues, and I found most agreed with my alarm. One put it most succinctly to me: `All scientific criticism is admissible, but this is a different matter.’

I realized these reviews captured both something inherently broken about the peer review process and—more importantly to me—about how AI could corrupt science without even trying. We’re paranoid about AI taking over us weak humans and we’re trying to put in structures so it doesn’t. But we’re also trying to develop AI so it helps where it should, and maybe that will be writing parts of papers. Here, chatGPT was not part of my work and yet it had prejudiced the whole process simply by its existential presence in the world. I was at once annoyed at being mistaken for a chatbot and horrified that reviewers and editors were not more outraged at the idea that someone had submitted AI generated text.

So much of science is built on trust and faith in the scientific ethics and integrity of our colleagues. We mostly trust others did not fabricate their data, and I trust people do not (yet) write their papers or grants using large language models without telling me. I wouldn’t accuse someone of data fraud or p-hacking without some evidence, but a reviewer felt it was easy enough to accuse me of writing fraud. Indeed, the reviewer wrote, `It is obviously [a] Chat GPT creation, there is nothing wrong using help ….’ So it seems, perhaps, that they did not see this as a harsh accusation, and the editor thought nothing of passing it along and echoing it, but they had effectively accused me of lying and fraud in deliberately presenting AI generated text as my own. They also felt confident that they could discern my writing from AI—but they couldn’t.

We need to be able to call out fraud and misconduct in science. Currently, the costs to the people who call out data fraud seem too high to me, and the consequences for being caught too low (people should lose tenure for egregious data fraud in my book). But I am worried about a world in which a reviewer can casually declare my work AI-generated, and the editors and journal editor simply shuffle along the review and invite a resubmission if I so choose. It suggests not only a world in which the reviewers and editors have no faith in the scientific integrity of submitting authors—me—but also an acceptance of a world where ethics are negotiable. Such a world seems easy for chatGPT to corrupt without even trying—unless we raise our standards.

Side note: Don’t forget to submit your entry to the International Cherry Blossom Prediction Competition!