Navigating the Rising Tide of AI-Generated Publications: Insights from ACSE Advisory Cabinet

In the rapidly evolving landscape of scholarly publishing, new challenges continue to emerge, and organizations like the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) must remain vigilant and proactive in addressing them. One such pressing issue that recently came to the forefront is the recent proliferation of AI-generated publications by leading publishers.

Recognizing the significance of this new development, ACSE convened its Advisory Cabinet to thoroughly examine the case and explore potential solutions to mitigate such occurrences in the future. In this article, we explore the insights and recommendations provided by our esteemed panel of advisors, which we hope will shed more light on the ongoing discourse around AI use in content development and peer review in publications.

Details of Submitted Case:

Retraction Watch Uncovers AI-Generated Paper Published by Elsevier
In a surprising turn of events, a tweet by Retraction Watch has ignited a firestorm on Twitter regarding an article published by Elsevier that was seemingly authored by the AI language model ChatGPT. The paper in question was titled "The three-dimensional porous mesh structure of Cu-based metal-organic-framework - aramid cellulose separator enhances the electrochemical performance of lithium metal anode batteries," and was authored by Manchu Zhang, Lining Wu, Tao Yang, Bing Zhu, and Yangai Liu. It appeared in the peer-reviewed journal "Surfaces and Interfaces," Volume 46, March 2024 (DOI: 10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081).

The quickly tweet went viral, prompting widespread discussions among the scientific community and beyond. Many have expressed astonishment that an AI language model could generate a paper detailed enough to pass through the editorial process of a reputable publisher like Elsevier.

Upon closer examination of the paper (accessible here: Link), it appears that the entire editorial process, including the reviewing team, may have overlooked the fact that an AI language model generated the paper.

This revelation has raised significant questions about the reliability of the peer review process and the potential implications of AI-generated content in scholarly publishing. While AI technologies have shown remarkable capabilities in generating content efficiently, this incident underscores the need for greater scrutiny and oversight in the editorial process.

As discussions continue to unfold on social media platforms, it remains to be seen how publishers like Elsevier will address this issue and what measures will be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

In a related development, another Twitter user has brought attention to yet another paper published by Elsevier, which raises further concerns about the use of AI-generated content in scholarly publishing. The paper, titled "Successful management of an iatrogenic portal vein and hepatic artery injury in a 4-month-old-female patient: A case report and literature review," was authored by ChatGPT.

The case report, detailing the successful management of an iatrogenic portal vein and hepatic artery injury in a 4-month-old female patient, was published in an Elsevier journal. The article delves into the case specifics and provides a literature review on the subject matter.

This revelation adds fuel to the ongoing discussion sparked by Retraction Watch's tweet, further highlighting the prevalence of AI-generated content within the scientific literature. The availability of such papers on reputable platforms like Elsevier raises questions about the efficacy of the editorial process in identifying and addressing AI-generated content.

The paper in question can be accessed via the following link: Link

As the debate surrounding AI-generated content in scholarly publishing continues to gain momentum, it underscores the need for heightened scrutiny and transparency in the editorial process.

ACSE Advisory Cabinet Members' Feedback:

The ACSE Advisory Cabinet Members (ACM) were consulted to gather insights, opinions, and suggestions regarding the discussed issue. To ensure the confidentiality of our cabinet members, each response has been assigned an opinion number. Below, you'll find the responses from each member:

Opinion by ACM01:

I find myself hesitant to offer commentary on the aforementioned incidents due to how they have been presented, for several reasons. Firstly, legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the (mis)use of AI. However, the final published outputs underscore the significant flaws within our publishing system and workflow, despite it being a collaborative effort involving numerous competent individuals: authors, reviewers, editors, typesetters, copy editors, and proofreaders. It appears that diligence in performing their respective roles has been lacking. The absence of a comprehensive review of the manuscript by any party is perplexing.

Second, in the Radiology Case Reports paper, it is evident that the authors paid the full article processing charge (APC) with the expectation of receiving a standard, satisfactory service from the publishers. However, the delivered outcome falls short of this expectation. While we often discuss consumer rights, it remains uncertain who would challenge or pursue legal action (and where) in the event of such rights being violated.

Thirdly, it begs the question of whether readers should also be considered consumers. This proposition is debatable, given that we do not directly pay for access to, or utilization of, the flawed open access output in Radiology Case Reports. Consequently, our rights may not be infringed upon in a strict sense. However, this assertion raises ethical considerations.

Lastly, as of this note on March 30, 2024, it is surprising to note that Surface and Interface have yet to remove the first AI-generated sentence from the Introduction, even after 38 days. Similarly, 22 days later, Radiology Case Reports has not addressed the last paragraph of the Discussion, totaling 90 words and entirely AI-generated. What does this delayed or absent response from journals and publishers signify? It implies a lack of concern, with the implicit message being one of indifference.

Opinion by ACM02:

A few thoughts come to mind on reading these case reports.   Clearly, the first example is not a great paper–but it has other problems of grammar and writing that seem unlikely to have been introduced by an AI like Chat GPT.  For instance, in the methods, some sentences are missing a verb: ChatGPT is very good about always having a subject and a verb in every sentence.  In other words, current AI is unlikely to be like the work once generated by the MIT Computer Science and Intelligence Lab, whose “SCIgen” program could produce full papers (https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414).

Realistically, no AI models can “write” (let alone “author”) a paper because they are algorithms, not authentic intelligences. ChatGPT, for instance, can deliver up to a certain word count based on an algorithm that generates statistically likely text based on its available data.  Another AI called Claude summarizes text, but it also has a limited output. Authors who are using AI to write up data they collected (as opposed to producing hoaxes like SCIgen papers) would need to give the AI specific directions, then use the ensuing different short outputs to put a manuscript together themselves, which requires a lot of composition work and fact-checking.   

Of course, authors would need to disclose the use of AI, including the methods (perhaps in an online appendix?) the same way as any other writing support must be disclosed.  It might be helpful for authors writing in English as a foreign language to have guidelines for using AI to check grammar, as long as the use is disclosed.

Expecting editors and peer reviewers to detect AI use seems unrealistic: even AIs can have difficulty identifying AI-generated text.  And although the example in the first case does look a little odd, there are other reasons that statement might have appeared. We should keep in mind that peer reviewers are providing a free service to the profession and editors already have a difficult time identifying peer reviewers. Thus, the peer review role should be limited to reviewing the apparent quality of what they are presented. It’s similar to problems of data integrity or data collection based on the text of a submitted manuscript: peer reviewers have the completed product, not access to every step of production.  

It seems clear, however, that peer reviewers in at least one case did not read the paper carefully enough–perhaps mostly examining data instead of checking the text.  Since the journal in question is produced by a large publishing house, one possible solution is to employ more copy editors to detect these sorts of errors and possible problems of integrity. Increasingly, though, subeditors of journals are also working for free, which limits the work that can realistically be expected of them. 

As mentioned later by my colleagues, editors can develop policies for AI use and disclosure and professional societies have an important role to play in providing guidance.  The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) guidance on the use of AI are good models that other editors can adopt or adapt. Authors should be asked to make specific disclosures, which could be built into the journal submission system. I realize that the submission process is already sometimes complicated, but asking a direct question about AI use is a good way to remind authors that they need to disclose all writing support–as well any other use of AI.  This kind of disclosure would also provide an opportunity to differentiate the use of AI as a scientific method, as an editorial tool, or as a reference generator. 

In closing, I will add that AIs can be used in many different ways as research tools as well as in generating text or as editorial tools. Publishers, for instance, are increasingly using AIs to format references and citations in scholarly books. Therefore, I think it is important to be specific about what kinds of AI use are permissible and how best to disclose appropriate uses of AI.

Opinion by ACM03:

Thank you for reaching out regarding this matter.  I deeply value these exchanges of ideas among my esteemed colleagues, and I find these insights about our exponentially developing field absolutely invaluable!

At the current state of understanding of AI, there is likely to be amplified outrage and social media frenzy around the seemingly unethical use of AI in content development as well as in the peer review process. However, it may be useful to recognize that many of the opinions and comments circulating may be speculative at this early juncture. The proliferation of outrage through mechanisms such as sharing, likes, comments, and reactions on social media platforms contributes to the viral dissemination of information and, consequently, the polarization of viewpoints on this emerging technology. Some reactions about the problematic use of AI are obvious and very understandable; for instance, there has to be strong pushback on the lack of transparency by not declaring the use of AI. It seems obvious that there is a need for further guidelines in this rapidly developing area.

 I would advocate for educational initiatives, spearheaded by organizations like ACSE, ISMPP, and DIA, to equip professionals in the publishing sphere with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate this terrain effectively. In my opinion, adopting a measured and systematic approach that prioritizes education and guideline development is imperative.

Conveniently, many of the questions that are jarring/troubling here may not be entirely new; the pace of change however is a new variable we will need to learn to adapt to. The rapid pace seems to evoke severe and polarized reactions. We can immediately see pro and against camps forming around AI in both the industry and academic sectors. Nevertheless, the obvious fact seems to be that AI use will continue to increase exponentially, it will drive innovation and efficiency. Definitely, along the way there will be unfortunate cases in the literature such as this. The silver lining is that the active discourse around such events is loud, and messy, but undoubtedly leads to more maturity in our understanding of this exciting new variable. I am very much looking forward to the new developments in this area, and also to the guardrails we need to develop to deal with misuse of AI during this inevitable and irreversible rapid growth.

Opinion by ACM04:

I echo my colleagues' concerns regarding the implications raised, which suggest inherent issues across various stages of the publication process. As highlighted by Lisa, one key issue revolves around the lack of disclosure of AI use. It's worth noting that the utilization of AI tools itself isn’t problematic and indeed serves as a useful tool for authors particularly those for whom English isn't their primary language.

 Nevertheless, as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), guidelines have made clear, that the authors should remain responsible for the contents of their work, and any use of AI tools should be transparently disclosed (in the acknowledgments and/or methods sections) so that editors, reviewers, and readers have this information available to them. In the specific example cited, the presence of the phrase "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic:" unequivocally indicates the involvement of an AI language model (LLM); however, if these words had been deleted, it would be less clear, and as Lisa also commented, reliable tools to detect AI-generated text are not available to editors (in the same way as, for example, plagiarism detection tools); so editors will rely on the authors making suitable disclosures. To, end this publishers and editors should make sure the need for these disclosures is clearly signposted on a journal's website, such as in the Author Guidelines, and should also be able to provide advice to authors on how to disclose usage appropriately.

Moreover, as discussed by my colleagues, there are procedural concerns surrounding the handling of the manuscript by the journal. The oversight of this particular sentence by the editor, reviewers, and copyeditors is disconcerting. While this oversight may not inherently implicate the validity of the study's results or conclusions (as Lisa comments, the reviewers may have focused on the data rather than the language), it undoubtedly undermines readers' confidence in the paper and erodes trust in the publication process at large.

Moving forward, it is incumbent upon the publisher to conduct a thorough investigation to rectify any inaccuracies or oversights identified, potentially necessitating a correction or even retraction, contingent on the investigation's findings. Additionally, there should be an emphasis on disseminating the outcomes of this investigation to educate authors, publishers, and editors alike on the appropriate and transparent use of AI technologies in scholarly publishing.

Opinion by ACM05:

I concur with the above comprehensive analysis, from the perspectives of authors, reviewers, and publishers/journals in terms of controlling the use of generative AI in scholarly writing and publishing processes, while also underscoring broader considerations regarding research and publishing integrity in general. Furthermore, I wish to augment the discourse with the following observations:

In this specific case, I maintain that the authors should have primarily used the generative AI (ChatGPT) tool for English editing and writing assistance, rather than generating the entire experimental results and the article itself. However, at the very least, they should have expunged the "dialogue phrases with the ChatGPT" from the Introduction and transparently disclosed the AI usage in crafting their paper. Such disclosure would have elucidated their limitations in language proficiency (particularly for the first author, who is usually a graduate student, and their co-authored supervisor, who failed to perform a final check on the paper).

The journal/publisher indeed has guidelines for the Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing in their author instructions (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#Authors), which state: 'The PUBLISHER's AI author policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, ... ...' Regrettably, the journal's editorial and production editors failed to scrutinize the paper meticulously to identify such issues and lacked the technical measures to readdress the matter of this kind. If properly disclosed, in the absence of plagiarism and with proper referencing of external sources, the use of new technologies, including generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission to solely improve the language and readability of the paper, should be acceptable, just as increasingly more new technologies have been used in the research itself.

Although this obvious problem should have also been identified by the reviewer(s), their primary task is to check and confirm the quality of the paper in terms of sound science and proper presentation.

This again suggests that all parties involved in the peer review process should improve their performance - journals/publishers should implement stricter peer review procedures and provide all possible cutting-edge technical support, and the reviewers should pay more attention to verifying the quality of the paper in terms of science and presentation, as well as providing comprehensive and constructive comments for the authors to improve. It also underscores the importance of adopting more open, transparent, and interactive peer reviews in science and its publication.

Finally, even for major (mostly commercial) STEM publishers, though they are generally regarded as huge and reputable due to their vast number of journal portfolios and subject coverage, as well as their leadership in publishing technologies, their business is virtually based on the individual journal operations, which vary in different subject areas, with some being in-house edited and others being partnership journals edited externally. All these factors can challenge their daily publishing activities, including but not limited to the specific cases picked out herein.

Opinion by ACM06:

I appreciate the council’s initiative in addressing this crucial issue. An additional, yet interconnected concern pertains to the evolving evaluation criteria for published papers. There is an ongoing discussion surrounding the evaluation of Open Educational Resources (OER) content, with a shift towards advocating for qualitative metrics alongside traditional quantitative measures. Presently, our reliance heavily leans toward citation scores and numerical counts, with less emphasis on other evaluative dimensions. This topic currently commands significant attention within Slovenia, reflecting the broader international conversation on enhancing the assessment framework for scholarly outputs.

I would start with the current state of AI discussion right now. Presently, a notable challenge lies in the rapid advancement of AI technology, outpacing the development of clear regulatory frameworks and guidelines governing its usage. Undoubtedly, researchers (or at least some of them) use AI tools to speed the writing process of articles for publication. The tools are out there, waiting to be used. There are a lot of AI tools that no longer just help with the literature review but also do statistical analysis with the data provided and make an interpretation and conclusion. I would list a few of them if you are interested: Scopus AI, Elicit, ResearchRabbit, PowerDrill, SciSpace, Perplexity, Semantic Scholar, Jenni.ai, Scholarcy, Scite, Consensus, Litmaps, GraphMaker, Bard and for the writing numerous apps paraphrase the text -Grammarly, Instatext, Deepl, Quillbot.

However, the publishers (as I learned, but it may be different from Journal to Journal) do not necessarily object to text enhancement through these tools. I also believe that we cannot prevent authors for using them but I think we need clear regulations on how to use them.

Authors face the dual pressures of meeting academic benchmarks for advancement, such as habilitation, while contending with vague journal policies regarding AI tool utilization in manuscript preparation. The policies are still in the early stages. Also the editors are left alone to research on these matters and provide the best solutions on their own to make responsible decisions about the review process.

It is paramount to familiarize ourselves with the functionality of AI tools and the distinctive content and writing style they generate.  I also think that in a short time it will be impossible to distinguish between human written text and generated text by AI. We simply do not have the resources that could help us detect the AI written text. Moreover, the exponential surge in manuscript submissions over recent years exacerbates the strain on the review process, with a tripling observed within the past three years alone.

 I wish to clarify that my intention is not to absolve editors of accountability in the presented case studies, as these instances have underscored notable deficiencies in the review process.  However, I anticipate a heightened likelihood of similar occurrences if corrective measures are not instituted. This necessitates the introduction of additional review stages to monitor for inconsistencies, currently lacking within the process. Yet, while editors can propose amendments, the implementation of necessary upgrades to submission systems lies within the purview of publishers, a process likely to entail a considerable timeframe.

I am somewhat taken aback by the publisher's failure to retract the paper thus far, particularly when considering past instances where papers were retracted for seemingly minor reasons. The following papers authored by Macchiarini have been retracted:

November 2012, retracted by the journal for copying a table from another paper without citing it:[43]

• Gonfiotti, Alessandro; Jaus, Massimo Osvaldo; Barale, Daniel; Baiguera, Silvia; Polizzi, Leonardo; Jungebluth, Philipp; Paoletti, Matteo; Pistolesi, Massimo; Macchiarini, Paolo (2012). "RETRACTED: Development and Validation of a New Outcome Score in Subglottic Stenosis". The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 94 (4): 1065–1072. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.107. PMID 22858276.

March 2017, retracted by authors[62] after Karolinska requested retraction in December 2016;[63][64] after Nature had issued an editorial notice of concern in October 2016:[65]

• Sjöqvist, Sebastian; Jungebluth, Philipp; Ling Lim, Mei; Haag, Johannes C.; Gustafsson, Ylva; Lemon, Greg; Baiguera, Silvia; Angel Burguillos, Miguel; Del Gaudio, Costantino; Rodríguez, Antonio Beltrán; Sotnichenko, Alexander; Kublickiene, Karolina; Ullman, Henrik; Kielstein, Heike; Damberg, Peter; Bianco, Alessandra; Heuchel, Rainer; Zhao, Ying; Ribatti, Domenico; Ibarra, Cristián; Joseph, Bertrand; Taylor, Doris A.; Macchiarini, Paolo (2014). "Experimental orthotopic transplantation of a tissue-engineered oesophagus in rats". Nature Communications. 5: 3562. Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.3562S. doi:10.1038/ncomms4562. PMC 4354271. PMID 24736316.

Macchiarini's 2011 Lancet paper described the treatment of Beyene. In February 2016 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences called for the Lancet to correct the paper, as Beyene had died,[66][67] in March 2016 four authors asked to be removed as authors, and in April 2016 the Lancet issued a notice of concern;[68] this paper too has since been retracted.

• Jungebluth, Philipp; Alici, Evren; Baiguera, Silvia; Blomberg, Pontus; Bozóky, Béla; Crowley, Claire; Einarsson, Oskar; Gudbjartsson, Tomas; Le Guyader, Sylvie; Henriksson, Gert; Hermanson, Ola; Juto, Jan Erik; Leidner, Bertil; Lilja, Tobias; Liska, Jan; Luedde, Tom; Lundin, Vanessa; Moll, Guido; Roderburg, Christoph; Strömblad, Staffan; Sutlu, Tolga; Watz, Emma; Seifalian, Alexander; Macchiarini, Paolo (2011). "RETRACTED: Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: A proof-of-concept study". The Lancet. 378 (9808): 1997–2004. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61715-7. PMID 22119609. S2CID 4578451.

October 2023, 2008 Lancet paper, retracted by the journal for falsification, including the claim that 'the graft immediately provided the recipient with a functional airway, improved her quality of life, and had a normal appearance and mechanical properties at 4 months':[69]

• Macchiarini, Paolo; Jungebluth, Philipp; Go, Tetsuhiko; Asnaghi, M Adelaide; Rees, Louisa E; Cogan, Tristan A; Dodson, Amanda; Martorell, Jaume; Bellini, Silvia; Parnigotto, Pier Paolo; Dickinson, Sally C; Hollander, Anthony P; Mantero, Sara; Conconi, Maria Teresa; Birchall, Martin A (December 2008). "RETRACTED: Clinical transplantation of a tissue-engineered airway". The Lancet. 372 (9655): 2023–2030. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61598-6. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 19022496. S2CID 13153058.

October 2023, 2013 Lancet paper, retracted by the journal for containing fabrication and falsification in several places, and three falsified figures:[70]

• Gonfiotti, Alessandro; Jaus, Massimo O; Barale, Daniel; Baiguera, Silvia; Comin, Camilla; Lavorini, Federico; Fontana, Giovanni; Sibila, Oriol; Rombolà, Giovanni; Jungebluth, Philipp; Macchiarini, Paolo (January 2014). "RETRACTED: The first tissue-engineered airway transplantation: 5-year follow-up results". The Lancet. 383 (9913): 238–244. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62033-4. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 24161821. S2CID 41597285.

Opinion by ACM07:

When this article was brought to my attention and asked how this could have gotten past the peer reviewers. I countered with, “How did it get past the copyeditors?” While this was just playful ribbing, I think we both had a point, which is also expressed by others in this discussion. There are many touch points in the publication process designed to validate, fact-check, and correct content, and each of those touch points failed. 
As someone who works on the technology side of scholarly publishing, I can confirm that the tools are not yet mature enough to easily catch AI-generated content in the same way that there are tools for plagiarism checking, methodology checking, and reference checking. However, it is just a matter of time. Image checking has a similar problem. There are tools to catch image manipulation, but AI-generated images are not manipulated, which means that catching fake images is much more difficult than catching altered images. 

The use of AI is not new, we all use spell check, and as AI gets more integrated into the writing tools we use every day, it is going to become a generally accepted part of the writing process. The concern should not be that an AI tool was used to prepare research for publication, the concern should be that an AI tool has made up the research out of whole cloth. The impulse to create fake science comes out of the publish-or-perish culture in academia. I recently participated in a peer review innovations workshop where the topic of research integrity became a major talking point. The group consisted mostly of publishers and editors who felt that institutions, like universities and research centers, needed to take responsibility for their researchers’ actions since those institutions ultimately have the most influence over researcher careers and funding sources.

Having worked for 30 years in peer review, as a desk editor, and as a systems provider, I also agree that the peer review process is extremely challenging due to the excess of research papers and the tendency of editors to utilize the same pool of reviewers again and again. There is a need for diversity in the reviewer pool, which would not only increase the pool of reviewers but would also bring in new and diverse voices. We need collaborative peer review where senior researchers work with junior researchers, openly and formally, to teach them how to peer review.  There are some good examples of peer review services that are doing some of this today. For example, PREreview, Review Commons, PCI, and PreLights.

Finally, some additional strategies for combating AI-generated research include FAIR and open data sharing, Registered Reports, transparent peer review, and documentation of the editorial process through a mechanism like DocMaps.

Acknowledgment:

We extend our sincere appreciation to the ACSE advisors Dikran Toroser, Haseeb Md. Irfanullah, Laura Dormer, Lisa DeTora, Mingfang Lu, Tony Alves and Vesna Skrbinjek for contributing their insights on this critical issue. We hope that their feedback will prove invaluable in addressing similar challenges in the future.

Keywords

AI-Generated Publications ACSE Advisory Cabinet Retraction Watch Elsevier

Comments

---

Hemanth Kumar manikyam

04 April, 2024

AI generated research publications practically have many issues. Scientific community should use AI at certain limitations. Publishers should come up with another AI technique to identify plagiarism like thing to identify AI written language

Prof. Dr. Saad Abdel-Hamid El-Sayed Hamad

04 April, 2024

Articles submitted for publication are taking into consideration the use of generative AI by publishers. If you plan to publish your writing, you should verify whether utilising generative AI to prepare articles is permitted on the publisher's author information page. Major publishers do not allow AI technologies to write. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are not capable of performing the duties of an author, such as contributing significantly, approving the final draft, or taking responsibility for the work's correctness and integrity. Proficiency in the subject matter, analytical reasoning, data analysis, and interpretation are necessary for these duties.

Yusuf Muhammad Sanyinna

04 April, 2024

Although, ChatGPT as an AI-generated model offers a seamless research experience, its abuse is hazardous to the research and scientific communities.

Lack of domain-specific knowledge: ChatGPT may not have the specialized knowledge required for writing academic papers in specific fields, leading to inaccuracies or incomplete information.

Limited understanding of complex topics: ChatGPT may struggle to grasp complex concepts or technical jargon, resulting in vague or incorrect explanations in academic writing.

Plagiarism concerns: ChatGPT may inadvertently generate content that closely resembles existing academic work, leading to potential plagiarism issues if not properly cited or referenced.

Lack of critical thinking and analysis: ChatGPT may not be able to provide the depth of critical analysis and evaluation that is often required in academic papers, resulting in superficial or shallow content.

Inconsistent quality: The output generated by ChatGPT can vary in quality and coherence, making it challenging to maintain a consistent level of writing quality throughout an academic paper.

Limited ability to follow specific formatting guidelines: ChatGPT may struggle to adhere to the specific formatting requirements of academic papers, such as citation styles, headings, and references, which could lead to formatting errors.

Ethical concerns: Using AI-generated content in academic papers raises ethical questions about authorship, intellectual property rights, and academic integrity, as it may blur the lines between original work and automated content generation.

Popoola David

04 April, 2024

It's important to always strict to ethical measures and not overlook standards.

Although the said paper was purely experimental, and while the innovation is crucial in its own respect, it is however imperative to appropriately classify each manuscript accordingly to cut sematic distortions.

Journals should not be overly driven by publication fee remuneration benefits at the expense of classical standards.
We always need ethical innovations.
I've seen outstanding original contributions rejected due to Author's inability to pay publication fee, while lower quality contributions were paid for, accepted and published nonhesitantly.
Thanks to ACSE for their encompassing resilience in making only outstanding works available to the world while providing scholarships/ waivers where due.

Dr. Dipan Adhikari

04 April, 2024

I am shocked to learn that a complete paper has been produced, by AI, This is a big blow right on the face of genuine researchers. I must admit that doing review of literature for any damn good topic is not everyone's cup of tea. But if given enough time and patience, that might be completed. It might take time but that is not impossible to finish. hopefully, if this trend continues in a rapid fashion, ultimately any damn writing would get published and scientific community in near future would copy that AI generated text without giving any further try to give genuine inputs. everyone is opting for shortcuts. But researchers must also keep in mind that this whole process of searching, extracting, and writing a paper is a big learning process and one should become ethical in truest sense to explore all avenues.

Prof. S. K. Verma

05 April, 2024

Publication of paper authored by AI language model ChatGPT published by a prestigious publisher-Elsevier is highly objectionable , unethical and a serious matter pointing towards future darkness in the scientific field. In the past, I did observe that many papers have been published by Elsevier without proper scrutiny, with lot of mistakes and poor scientific matter,only to get the huge publishing charges. The authors get the advantage of publishing paper in indexed journal for their promotion.
The common operative force at all levels is lack of moral principles, in individual as well as collective spheres.The matter should be seriously raised, discussed and some solution should be brought urgently to prevent such type of unethical events.
I do get such type of AI generated paper with zero plagiarism on a medical topic by non-medical person. The point under discussion is just the tip of the iceberg.
Science should be for all round (physical, mental and spiritual) progress, well being and blessedness of the humanity and not for earning the money, infusing moral degradation, scientific degeneration and ethical disruption.

Dr Prabhu Britto Albert

05 April, 2024

Such situations arise due to overdependence of the Higher Education Regulatory Bodies on some journal groups that have managed to maintain high metrics. High Metrics alone cannot justify that those journal groups are excellent. Once they achieve benchmarks, they have to sustain those benchmarks, and in the pursuit of maintenance of such benchmarks, they sometimes overlook such flaws. At the same time, this arises coz predominantly journals publish only in the English language, and AI tools are used bythose who have a difficulty in the language. We cannot label this as bad writing practice, but when they are under pressure to publish in reputed journals, they may have had to resort to AI. So no use blaming the Journal or the authors. The Higher Education Regulatory bodies have to recognize all journals and stop recognizing only those journals in specific indexes.

Mostafa Essam Eissa

06 April, 2024

I think we can embrace the title of this issue as: "AI in Research: Challenges and Exciting Possibilities"
This article raises a critical issue, but I believe AI also holds immense potential for good in the scientific field. There have been already studies that acknowledge the use of AI in summarizing vast research areas to identify gaps and accelerate discovery. Of course, clear guidelines and robust detection methods are essential to ensure responsible AI use.
Moreover, The pressure to publish is a real concern. Perhaps a shift towards valuing quality over quantity, alongside alternative metrics for academic success, could incentivize researchers to focus on genuine contributions.
The ethical implications of AI-generated content are profound. New frameworks for crediting AI co-authorship or acknowledging AI assistance in specific tasks, like literature review, could be explored.
Transparency is key. Researchers could disclose their use of AI tools for specific tasks, fostering trust and ensuring responsible integration of AI into research workflows.
The potential for AI misuse extends beyond research papers. We need a broader discussion about responsible AI use across scholarly communication, including grant proposals and peer reviews.
The bright side is that we can use this as an opportunity for open dialogue within the scientific community. AI can be a powerful tool to enhance research, not replace researchers. Collaborative work to develop and utilize AI responsibly for the advancement of knowledge is crucial to setting the rules for the future.

Abdelazim Negm

06 April, 2024

Using ChatGPT or any similar AI technology should be prohibited, and proper penalties should be applied to all who violate publication ethics to keep the science clear and clean from such pollution. I am not happy with such an author's behavior. Developers of AI software/models should do their best to create an AI tool to detect such violations, if possible, and it should be updated as long as ChatGPT and other AI models are updated or upgraded.

Abdelazim Negm

06 April, 2024

This is a serious mistake from all parties and should be repeated. I am happy that it was retracted to be a lesson for others. All parties, particularly authors and reviewers, should respect the rules and the publication ethics.
Thanks to Elsevier for taking the needed action and retracting the article. In addition, some kind of penalty should be applied to all who violate the publication ethics.

Prof. Dr. Tarek Dabah -2

07 April, 2024

APC should not exceed 500 dollars in any journal and that 50% of this amount of money should go to a competitive professional highly-qualified revision process.
Considering the AI usage, and extent and nature of its use, it must be disclosed, like the other disclosures, in a separate item in the manuscript. And, away from data generation/faking/fabrication, like any other source of literatures, it must be wisely weighed, on same bases.

Prof. Dr. Tarek Dabah

07 April, 2024

All research and publication frauds must be an easy catch for a genuine professional revision and editorial supervision/scrutinization.
What is happening nowadays is that journals are gathering thousands of dollars as APC for doing almost nothing; an effort worth a maximum cost of no more than 50 dollars, while the real work is supposed to be done by reviewers who are getting square nothing.
This makes reviewers reluctant and makes journal greedy. In the overwhelming number of cases, journals are using unqualified, unspecialized, inexperienced, and even untrustworthy reviewers. The juke is that some authors submit fake reviewer's credentials and communication information that turn the article back to them for revision. The other juke is that journals use whatever names submitted as reviewers as suggested by authors, even those they are belonging to the same research group and institute, without the simplest scrutinization.
Things are going very ridiculous, even with the largest published around. Journals are accepting review articles, case reports and meta-analysis from medical student authors with zero research experience and history. Such type of publications must be dedicated to experienced investigators in their specialty.
Therefore, in my opinion, the weakest point here is the revision process. The remedy is that the revision task must be paid, and publication fee must be reduced so as science publication not to be a crazy profit-orient as it is nowadays - with higher profits than drug dealing.

Salman Ahmed

08 April, 2024

While AI undeniably enhances the research process with its seamless interface, its misuse poses significant risks to the integrity of academic and scientific communities. Publishers must establish clear guidelines regarding the use of generative AI in research publications to preserve academic integrity.

Atul Kaushik

08 April, 2024

Dear Readers,
It is really surprising and strange for all of us that the publishers or Reviewers are not evaluating the article with academic integrity and ethically.
I may have different opinion for the AI generated content for review articles and different opinion for the research Article (Lab based or data analysis).
Generating the idea by AI technologies are not too bad and can be helpful as we also search the literature by using various search engines for our own manuscript preparations.
But I strongly discourages who do not create or build upon his or her idea on the AI generated content.
We should not over react on the AI generated materials as it is also available on the internet and many people are copying and editing the published materials. As far as I know about the AI tools, It takes the material from the published papers available on the web pages.
My concluding remark is we must create our own data and check for the authenticity and proper citations. Taking an Idea from AI content is not bad.

Dr. Afroz Alam

08 April, 2024

It would be difficult to ignore the use of AI in article writing given the growing popularity of these tools, and most journals would soon welcome it as it saves a great deal of time on repetitive chores, particularly those involving language and overall structural adjustments. It is ultimately up to the editorial board and reviewers to decide whether or not to publish papers produced by AI in highly regarded journals. The work may be considered for publication if it satisfies the journal's requirements for originality, quality, and relevance and passes a stringent peer review procedure. However, it's important to refer to the particular guidelines of the publication in question, as each one may have different policies and requirements for accepting articles.
Thank you

Dr. Awaneesh Jee Srivastava

08 April, 2024

The content are good and remarkable work. Some facts are also needed.

Hin Lyhour

08 April, 2024

Now, it is an AI era that provides more benefits than harm for humanity, especially for the scholarly society, if AI is used in the right way. Making it right must arise from self-discipline; however, that is not enough. There must be preventive measures put in place to tackle AI-generated papers. In case AI is used to create ideas and support proof-reading, it is fine. But, if authors rely solely on it, it will become a disaster. In short, I can say it is trade-off between when to use and when not to use AI, but we take advantage of this tool rather than thinking about oppressing it.

Dr. Theodore Ikechukwu Mbata

08 April, 2024

The idea on the AI generated content although useful but cannot be use to generate final articles acceptance. This is bad.

Dr. Salman Ahmed Pharmacognosy

08 April, 2024

While AI undeniably enhances the research process with its seamless interface, its misuse poses significant risks to the integrity of academic and scientific communities. Publishers must establish clear guidelines regarding the use of generative AI in research publications to preserve academic integrity. Additionally, journals should prioritize quality over financial incentives, ensuring that groundbreaking contributions are not overlooked due to authors' financial constraints. Striving for ethical innovation remains paramount in advancing scholarly discourse.

Dr. Shola Rasheed AMAO

08 April, 2024

This is so surprising that a reputable journal outlets could not easily detected such a visible AI prone generated article.
Amazingly , the journal house seems not bother about the costly and grossly inadequate errors committed.
Well, Al should be regulated in uses to allow human perfection.
Thanks you all

Dr. Aziz I. Abdulla

08 April, 2024

Artificial intelligence is an important and useful tool for researchers and practitioners alike. However, these unfortunate events, among others, unfairly blame the publisher, editor, proofreader, and reviewers simultaneously, while also placing blame on the researcher themselves. Clear regulations must be established regarding the use of artificial intelligence and the permissible ratios.

Dr. Bhupinder Dhir

09 April, 2024

AI might act as a good tool for designing experiments as we can predict the trends of the results. AI platforms should not be misused for writing scientific manuscripts.

Dr. Aziz I. Abdulla

13 April, 2024

Artificial intelligence is an important and useful tool for researchers and practitioners alike. However, these unfortunate events, among others, unfairly blame the publisher, editor, proofreader, and reviewers simultaneously, while also placing blame on the researcher themselves. Clear regulations must be established regarding the use of artificial intelligence and the permissible ratios.

Dr. Farshid Talat

15 April, 2024

İ am unhappy of using Aİ in scientific writing without any attempt for data gathering by authors or researchers.
The idea on the AI generated content although useful but cannot be use to generate final articles acceptance. This is bad.
This is a serious mistake from all parties and should be repeated. I am happy that it was retracted to be a lesson for others. All parties, particularly authors and reviewers, should respect the rules and the publication ethics.

Dr. OBIDIKE IKECHUKWU JOHNLOUIS

15 April, 2024

I know it will be difficult to combat but not impossible. Writing a counter program that will identify AI language will likely go a long way. Also making it crystal clear in the Author's guide that the use of AI is prohibited will help.

Arinze Favour Anyiam

15 April, 2024

I think these revelations are eye-openers that emphasize the need for due diligence by peer reviewers and the Editorial team of Journals. It is also important to regulate the use of AI in academic publishing, in order to forestall such abuses in the future.

Sivakumar Poruran

15 April, 2024

It is a serious issue the the academic world has to specify the ways and level of ethical negligence in scientific explorations and publication using AI. Let Man control Machines. Never the reverse should be allowed!!!

SATHEESH MK KUMAR

15 April, 2024

AI will play a pivotal role in shaping the future across various industries. A manuscript serves as a documentation of ideas and the successful execution of research, originating from the collective intellect of group members. However, if the report is generated using AI, it may lose the inherent aesthetic appeal of human creativity. AI relies on predetermined vocabulary, lacking the flexibility of human expression. Furthermore, all manuscripts produced by AI may appear identical in terms of content, differing only in numerical values. This could potentially lead to instances of AI plagiarism.

Dr.Akleshwar Mathur

15 April, 2024

We agree that the use of modern computational techniques is essential in all fields of research to provide accurate and prompt results, but the use of digital/computational methods in research work should be controlled through ethical and human matters.
When this technique was new, it was assumed that the research work would become easy.
But in my opinion, an honest, realistic bench, as well as fieldwork, are the basics of every researcher.
It is quite impossible to load data in any AI feed, without a real bunch of original raw data, which will work only, if accurate and precise lab work is done by one.

Ajit Singh

16 April, 2024

The inclusion of AI-generated papers in Elsevier's peer-reviewed journals signifies a significant shift in the academic publishing landscape. It raises questions about the credibility and validity of such papers, as well as the potential impact on traditional scholarly publishing processes. It's likely to spark discussions about the role of AI in research and the ethical considerations surrounding its use in academic publishing.

Dr. Rismen Sinambela

16 April, 2024

Technological developments should help humans to obtain more precise results and be useful for scientific development. In my opinion, AI written language cannot immediately become a reference for exploring more precise and complex cases. So some kind of AI language check is needed to identify it as an indication of plagiarism in the journal.

Dr. G. M. Shamsul Kabir

16 April, 2024

Articles submitted for publication are taking into consideration the use of generative AI by publishers.

Dr. Rizwan Ahmad

16 April, 2024

After reading the article about the use of AI in data generation, it's evident that there's a lack of knowledge among potential reviewers and editors. I find it intriguing that this issue persists despite being published in a reputed Elsevier journal. In today's world, where AI is being utilized in almost every sphere of research, it's high time we establish new ethical parameters and guidelines for publications. If we don't take action, we'll soon be flooded with AI-based articles. As a colleague rightly said, everyone likes shortcuts. Therefore, let's take charge of the situation and do what's necessary to ensure that the publications are high quality and ethical. Everyone likes shortcuts. Therefore, let's take charge of the situation and do what's needed to ensure that the publications are high quality and ethical.

Melford Mbedzi

16 April, 2024

It is quite impossible to ignore the use of AI in article writing, as it is what is being adopted now by each and every industry if not most. Though care must be taken when utilizing these tools. We cannot, however, rely solely on AI, somehow doesn't seem ethical.

Sergey Krylov

16 April, 2024

A very interesting situation. How will this all end?

Matthew Abiola

17 April, 2024

what is not real is not real

Sobia Tabassum

18 April, 2024

I am wondering at the controversial Elsevier paper which appears in this current scenario when the associated risk values and ethical inferences of using AI based writing tools in scientific publishing are under constant evaluation. There are a lot of benefits of AI based algorithms in science however using AI as a tool for writing a scientific paper without any proof read and passing it through the peer review is very sensitive matter which needs to be discussed in scientific community.
Journal editors always prefer to publish original, high-quality content that would be unique and astute in its information for readers. However in my opinion an AI-written article can't serve that much up to the standard / policy of the journal.
AI-assisted tools, such as ChatGPT is very frequently used for content production but it comes up with several problems like plagiarism detection, lack of original concept particularly related to the scientific writing and the tailoring of articles along with several others attentiveness caution at the linked with well reputed journals like Elsevier which may face the factual inaccuracies, debates surrounding authorship and biased literature.

Prof. Essam Shaalan

22 April, 2024

Many thanks for all authors who contributed significantly and productively to this discussion about this unethical publishing issue.

ARes Solomon I. Ubani

27 April, 2024

AI represents a new technology. It opens to new possibility. But so is lack of accuracy and precision in results. There are many forms I have encountered from textual, imaging, video and audio. It is author responsibility for standard to use it in a illustrative way rather then publish or depicting results of the experiment.

Guillermo Cano-Verdugo

27 April, 2024

Hi everyone from Mexico. Artificial intelligence is an emerging concern, I can say I consider it as a double-sided knife, as it helps the whole academic society, it is a threat. In a non far future, there will be softwares that could identify AI in manuscripts, wich will lead to a future unpublication of several manuscripts already published.

Hiba Hamdar

27 April, 2024

Living in a world where AI is increasingly prevalent in all parts of our lives is becoming the norm. As a result, using AI in writing is not a big concern. However, as a researcher, I believe that AI should be utilized ethically, as a facilitator to assist in the design of the article or research that we intend to write or discuss, but never as a replacement. AI should not be used to replace researchers. The beauty of a research remains in its method of execution, which includes exploring databases, writing the results, and asking yourself numerous questions about the methodology and which study design is more comfortable to utilize. For those who know how, research can be a valuable resource. Research is a treasure for those who know how to do it, not just a paper to put on your resume.

Dr. Afshin Rashid

28 April, 2024

What has recently increased in writing scientific articles is the use of artificial intelligence in writing scientific articles. This scientific abnormality in some cases causes an increase in fraud in the writing and text of articles. Here I must express my concern about the prevalence of this type of issues. Unfortunately, the incorrect use of a useful and new technology has caused discomfort to the scientific community.

Chioma Anorue

28 April, 2024

AI is new a new tool in information technology. Understanding the usage will help a lot of people. Artificial Intelligence can only give one insight on what is expected on a particular topic. AI cannot carry out experiments, produce findings or summarize a research work. Elseveir need to do proper scrutiny to papers submitted to it. It has come a long way to be careless.

Joseph Oko

28 April, 2024

I am of the opinion that reviewers, editors and everyone in the journal publication workflow should be financially rewarded and given enough time to critically play their roles effectively. There's no journal paper that's published free of charge therefore money should be directed to improve the quality of work done in the journal publication process.

Also, authors should be made to declare their use of AI models in content creation and at the same time authors should proofread and fact check all contents generated by AI that they intend to use.

Generally, the misuse of AI models is a serious challenge to the academic world.

Prof Dr Stephen Larbi-Koranteng

28 April, 2024

I have always thought that scientific writing is a skill that need to be developed by any scientist who wants to develop in his or her career path. Technology is here to help us in this direction, however, we should not loose sight of the fact that these technologies are doing us more harm than good. My personal opinion on the subject matter is a descretion of every journal to define clearly the standard of each paper to be published. In such case they will be able to decide if a technology should be accepted or not.
Again, all stakeholders in the publication chain should be made to ensure due deligence in their role to ensure quality which is a hall mark of a good journal. Who determines that a journal is predatory or not? A good journal is by the quality of an articles they produce. Journals should not be judged from only the scope of its audience and say it is a good journal. If that was done in the case study of the Elsevier publications, nobody would have detected any flaw in such publications using AI technology. Journal should therefore prioritise quality over monies they derive from APC.
Thanks

Mona A. M. Abd El-Gawad

28 April, 2024

Thanks for all authors who contributed significantly and productively to this discussion about this unethical publishing issue. All Articles submitted for publication are taking into consideration the use of generative AI by publishers.

Prof. (Dr) Zahir Hasan

29 April, 2024

The journal is doing excellent work in the field of research and development.

Myself and my research team is very much satisfied.

Zahir

Dr. Abdelali Bey Zekkoub

03 May, 2024

Honestly, I was astonished. How could a complete paper be published in globally renowned scientific journals without the reviewers realizing that the article was plagiarized by using ChatGPT? This is unacceptable. Therefore, reviewers should take their time in scientific evaluation, and the review process should not be completed in less than a month to ensure accuracy. I also call on the journal management to allocate a team for preliminary review before submission for scientific evaluation. The aim of this is to ensure that the article is not plagiarized by using ChatGPT. Additionally, it should be added to the journal policy that the use of by using ChatGPT for writing articles is not acceptable, as it constitutes clear scientific plagiarism. Thank you.

Dr. Somaia Mohamed Alkhair

03 May, 2024

It is obvious that the editorial process needs to be more rigorous. The reviewers are involved in this case along with the journal editorial board. It’s clear that the authors did not revise their manuscript before submission and reviewers did not review the whole manuscript. I am afraid it’s a trust and bias issue.
It is clear evidence that AI has generated these parts of the mentioned paper. How could this issue have not been seen by the editors, reviewers and the authors themselves? The possible reseson for this misconduct is that the increased number of manuscripts submitted to the journal did not allow the Editor-in-chief to review this manuscript before assigning it to the reviewers.
It is obvious that the editorial boards need the help of technology to make the first assessment of the submitted manuscripts. In education, the educators with the help of programmers have established from the GenAI foundation model 41 domain models that assess in achieving targeted educational goals. The established models named EdGPT. Regarding the appearance of the misuse of AI in manuscript writing; it the time to establish RvGPT to help the editors along with the plagiarism checker programs to make the first decision before the manuscript is sent to external reviewers.

Prof. Bilter A. Sirait

09 May, 2024

We must admit that AI services are indispensable and we can no longer block their presence today. If everyone works together, works smart and works hard, I think this can be prevented from conceding entry to reputable journals. All editors, reviewers, and other management must work together to resolve this. It may also be asked in governance, was this article produced by AI? But clearly, if editors and reviewers work painstakingly while appreciating the spirit of the writing, there must be a difference made by AI and direct authors.

Leave a Comment

---

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Comment