It seems totally unclear whether ChatGPT is being used to invent fictional methodology or literature review etc., which is extremely unethical, or whether it's simply being used to check and fix grammar and tone for non-native speakers, which is perfectly fine.
But regardless, this is extremely troubling in terms of quality. The fact that "regenerate response" gets left in tells us that even if it's just for grammar correction:
1) The authors aren't even minimally reviewing if the ChatGPT version didn't accidentally change the meaning of the sentences
2) Peer reviewers clearly aren't even reading the paper
3) The journal isn't even reading the paper to introduce a minimal level of quality control
ChatGPT seems to be the smallest problem here. And thankfully, it is revealing much more serious problems about quality checks in academia at all.
The question is, will anything be done about it? Not about ChatGPT, but about the horrifically irresponsible processes that would let these slip through?
But regardless, this is extremely troubling in terms of quality. The fact that "regenerate response" gets left in tells us that even if it's just for grammar correction:
1) The authors aren't even minimally reviewing if the ChatGPT version didn't accidentally change the meaning of the sentences
2) Peer reviewers clearly aren't even reading the paper
3) The journal isn't even reading the paper to introduce a minimal level of quality control
ChatGPT seems to be the smallest problem here. And thankfully, it is revealing much more serious problems about quality checks in academia at all.
The question is, will anything be done about it? Not about ChatGPT, but about the horrifically irresponsible processes that would let these slip through?