ArticleCell reports. Physical science2023
Accurately detecting AI text when ChatGPT is told to write like a chemist.
Article in Cell reports. Physical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality assurance in generative AI-mediated education: a bibliometric and scoping review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
- Gotcha GPT: Ensuring the Integrity in Academic Writing.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet).Big data and cognitive computing · 2024Article
- Unveiling ChatGPT text using writing style.Heliyon · 2024Article
- ChatGPT in veterinary medicine: a practical guidance of generative artificial intelligence in clinics, education, and research.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models like ChatGPT can generate authentic-seeming text at lightning speed, but many journal publishers reject language models as authors on manuscripts. Thus, a means to accurately distinguish human-generated from artificial intelligence (AI)-generated text is immediately needed. We recently developed an accurate AI text detector for scientific journals and, herein, test its ability in a variety of challenging situations, including on human text from a wide variety of chemistry journals, on AI text from the most advanced publicly available language model (GPT-4), and, most important, on AI text generated using prompts designed to obfuscate AI use. In all cases, AI and human text was assigned with high accuracy. ChatGPT-generated text can be readily detected in chemistry journals; this advance is a fundamental prerequisite for understanding how automated text generation will impact scientific publishing from now into the future.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.