manisha on Nostr: nprofile1q…cxm42 well then we are questioning their ethics, which as a reviewer I ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqjzgxd3ylxrpqcr90zss3ttyuk20cr6y9r7ewz2hyauvr4n0xzs8sucxm42 (nprofile…xm42) well then we are questioning their ethics, which as a reviewer I think you'd be allowed to raise concerns about. It would probably boil down to giving them the benefit of the doubt if they come back and say that they didn't use genAI, and if you recommend publication then you could state in your review something like "as long as the authors' declaration about AI usage is accurate, I recommend publication ..." .
Or they may admit that they used it to correct grammar and sentence construction? This was the case when I'd suspected genAI use in a few students' assignments this year. I just requested them to resubmit by writing it out in their own words. Copy editors at journals could likely correct grammatical mistakes and non-English speaking scientists shouldn't be shamed for having minor language-related errors in the first place - this is likely what drives them to such "tools". However, if the usage of genAI leads to questionable scientific results, then that should definitely be raised as a major issue in the review. that'd likely be my approach..
Or they may admit that they used it to correct grammar and sentence construction? This was the case when I'd suspected genAI use in a few students' assignments this year. I just requested them to resubmit by writing it out in their own words. Copy editors at journals could likely correct grammatical mistakes and non-English speaking scientists shouldn't be shamed for having minor language-related errors in the first place - this is likely what drives them to such "tools". However, if the usage of genAI leads to questionable scientific results, then that should definitely be raised as a major issue in the review. that'd likely be my approach..