😤 I just had my paper rejected by an MDPI journal.
Not because of scientific flaws. Not because of plagiarism.
But because "parts were AI-drafted."
➡️ Here's the problem:
1. MDPI published an editorial stating that "AI-written scientific manuscripts should be generally considered acceptable by the scientific community" (Quaia, Tomography 2025).
2. COPE — the international ethics authority — explicitly allows AI use:
"Authors who use AI tools must be transparent in disclosing how
the AI tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content."
I did EXACTLY that:
✅ Disclosed AI use in Methods
✅ Specified the tool (www.publicationgod.com - yes, my own)
✅ Took full responsibility for content
✅ Verified every sentence
This reveals a fundamental contradiction in academic publishing:
We're told to be TRANSPARENT about AI use.
Then we're REJECTED for being transparent.
➡️ The result? Researchers will start hiding AI assistance instead of disclosing it. The exact opposite of what COPE and MDPI claim to want.
The question shouldn't be "was AI used?", it should be "Is the science sound?".
Transparency should be rewarded, not punished.
#AcademicPublishing #ScientificWriting #AIethics #OpenScience
Source: Jens Mittag
No comments:
Post a Comment