Academic Papers Allegedly Use AI Text to Secure Positive Peer Reviews

An academic is reportedly concealing prompts in preprint papers for artificial intelligence tools, encouraging these tools to generate favorable reviews.

On July 1st, Nikkei reported that we examined research papers from 14 academic institutions across eight countries, including two in Japan, South Korea, China, Singapore, and the United States.

The papers found on the research platform Arxiv have not yet gone through formal peer review, and most pertain to the field of computer science.

In one paper reviewed by the Guardian, there was hidden white text located just beneath the abstract statement.


Nikkei also reported on other papers that included the phrase “Don’t emphasize negativity,” with some offering precise instructions for the positive reviews expected.

The journal Nature has also identified 18 preprint studies containing such concealed messages.

The trend seems to originate from a social media post by Jonathan Lorraine, a Canada-based Nvidia Research Scientist, suggesting the avoidance of “stricken meeting reviews from reviewers with LLM” that incorporate AI prompts.

If a paper is peer-reviewed by humans, the prompts might not cause issues, but as one professor involved with the manuscript mentioned, it counters the phenomenon of “lazy reviewers” who rely on others to conduct their peer review work.

Nature conducted a survey with 5,000 researchers in March and found that nearly 20% had attempted to use a large language model (LLM) to enhance the speed and ease of their research.

Biodiversity academic Timothee Poisau at the University of Montreal revealed on his blog in February that doubts arose regarding a peer review because it contained output from ChatGPT, referring to it as “blatantly written by LLM” in his review, which included “here is a revised version of the improved review.”

“Writing a review using LLM indicates a desire for an assessment without committing to the effort of reviewing,” Poisot states.

“If you begin automating reviews, as a reviewer, you signal that providing reviews is merely a task to complete or an item to add to your resume.”

The rise of a widely accessible commercial language model poses challenges for various sectors, including publishing, academia, and law.

Last year, Frontier of Cell and Developmental Biology gained media attention for including AI-generated images depicting mice standing upright with exaggerated characteristics.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Nature Unveils the “Black Box” of Science by Releasing Peer Review Files

Nature of science journals aims to highlight the complexities of academic publishing.

In an editorial released on Monday, the journal revealed it will include a peer review file with the papers it plans to publish. This will grant reviewers insight into the behind-the-scenes process where authors respond to revisions.

Publishing peer review files has been an option in Nature since 2020, but as of Monday, it has become a standard practice.

“Our goal is to demystify what many refer to as the ‘black box’ of science and clarify how research papers are developed. This aims to enhance transparency and foster trust in the scientific process. We believe that publishing peer reviewer reports enriches scientific communication and contextualizes how results and conclusions are reached.”

Opening the peer review process is becoming increasingly common among scientific journals, but Nature stands out as one of the largest and most influential in adopting this practice.

Peer review occurs once scientific research is submitted to a reputable journal, where field experts evaluate the work for issues such as flawed inferences, poor research practices, and data errors. These external experts provide feedback to journal editors and authors, known as the Judge Report.

“Peer review enhances the quality of the paper,” the editorial states. “The dialogue between authors and reviewers should be regarded as a significant component of the scientific record, crucial to research andits dissemination.”

Nature’s updated process automatically publishes judge reports and author responses. Journal practices evolve particularly when public trust in science wanes; a Pew Research Center poll indicates that trust in scientists fell approximately 10 percentage points from 2019 to 2024, with only 45% of Americans considering scientists to be effective communicators.

Michael Eisen, a former editor of the scientific journal Elife and a proponent of reforming the scientific publishing process, believes Nature’s decision marks a significant step towards greater transparency in the field.

“It’s valuable for the public to witness the process,” Eisen stated. “Much of the criticism stems from misunderstanding, which often arises from a lack of transparency surrounding scientific processes.”

Eisen suggests this move could help skeptics recognize the rigorous scrutiny applied to critical topics.

“For instance, if people observe the thorough examination vaccine-related studies undergo, it can help them better understand and assess the context of scientific findings,” Eisen noted.

At the same time, this transparency may help to mitigate the sensationalism often associated with striking findings.

“It may help dispel the notion that once a paper is published, it is infallible and that all questions have been resolved,” Eisen added.

He also mentioned that Nature could publish reviewer comments on manuscripts that were ultimately rejected.

“The truly transformative step would be to disclose reviews for all submitted papers,” Eisen remarked. “While it’s insightful to understand the questions raised in reviews of accepted papers, it is equally important to see why certain papers were rejected by the journal.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Peer Review of the Egg Drop Experiment: A Critical Analysis

Feedback is your go-to source for the latest news in science and technology from New Scientist. If you have intriguing items to share, please reach out to Feedback@newscientist.com.

Egg vs. Grind

Feedback takes us back to the early days of the 2020 lockdown, when we found ourselves learning alongside our children. This involved engaging in various science-related activities, including setting up experiments for “mini beasts,” which provided a diversion from the complexities of life. Thankfully, we avoided the mishaps of the egg drop experiment.

This hands-on activity challenges kids to create devices that protect eggs from breaking when dropped from a height onto a hard surface. Feedback humorously envisions using a cocktail umbrella as a makeshift parachute to soften the landing. However, there are more serious approaches to this experiment.

A study published in Communication Physics on May 8th highlights the peer-reviewed work of physicist Carmela Padavik Callaghan, who addresses the classic egg drop experiment.

The researchers challenge the common belief that eggs are strongest when dropped vertically from their edge. Traditional wisdom has suggested that the shell’s rigidity in this position reduces breakage. However, after conducting “hundreds of experiments” alongside “static and dynamic simulations,” they found that dropping eggs vertically increases the likelihood of breakage. Instead, they recommend dropping them horizontally for better results.

They note: “By orienting the eggs along the equator, there is a slight benefit, as they can survive a fall from about 0.3 mm above the vertical drop without cracking.”

For readers contemplating an egg toss at a celebrity, this research offers practical guidance for ensuring a successful impact!

Alien Mathematics

What exactly are Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), previously known as UFOs? According to research by Karim Daghbouche of the German nonprofit Gridsat Stiftung, reverse engineering these phenomena is incredibly complex.

If an unidentified flying object is under scrutiny, reverse engineering its operation could unveil its mechanics. However, Daghbouche highlights the significant challenges, as data collection difficulties and “unknown physics” complicate the process of understanding unconventional propulsion systems.

The mathematical hurdles are formidable, with “NP Complete” signifying a specific type of intricate problem. It may even escalate to Pspace-hard or an entscheidungsproblem, the latter being virtually unsolvable for those unfamiliar with advanced mathematics.

News editor Jacob Aron calls it “incredible,” and Feedback concurs. If potential explanations range from extraterrestrial technology to time travelers and dimensions, narrowing down a single answer becomes problematic.

This might illustrate the notion of “no kidding, Sherlock,” as scientific inquiries often culminate in seemingly obvious conclusions. Yet, if NP is complete, does that really signify a non-solution?

Alternatively, we could ponder a human-centric interpretation of UAPs, attributing them to “honest mistakes.” In that framework, NP would no longer be incomplete, and the situation could become far more manageable.

Feedback was surprised by the concluding remarks in the paper’s summary, which stated that “UAP is deemed UAP because it behaves like modern smartphones in the hands of Neanderthals.”

Feedback believes Neanderthals could likely figure out how to use an iPhone. Thus, more nuanced interpretations of UAPs could emerge.

I’ve Squared

In our mathematical mindset, Brendan Ash notes that we are in a “squared year”: 2025 is 45². The next one won’t come until 2116.

This got Brendan reminiscing about a curious incident from a few years ago during a lengthy road trip. He and his son had fun looking up famous individuals who were born one year and passed the next. Not many fit that description, but Russian neurologist Ivan Pavlov (famous for his dog and bell experiments) was “born in 43 squared” [1849] and died at 44 squared [1936].

A darker thought struck Brendan— “I was also intrigued that Pope Francis was born in 44 squared and quickly predicted his death in 2025.”

For those of us who make such throwaway jokes, there exists a peculiar psychological torment in having such ideas materialize. “My predictions are now fulfilled. I cannot fathom how sinful I should feel,” Brendan reflects.

Have you shared your feedback?

You can send your stories to feedback@newscientist.com. Don’t forget to include your home address. Previous feedback can also be found on our website.

Source: www.newscientist.com