(Més)usages des LLM pour la
production scientifique

Ophélie Fraisier-Vannier, IRIT-CNRS, équipe IRIS

Colloque Ofis 15 avril 2025, Paris
## Production scientifique en hausse

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Dimensions

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
## Production et productivité scientifique en hausse

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

November 08 2024

**The strain on scientific publishing**

Mark A. Hanson

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Pablo Gómez Barreiro

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Paolo Crosetto

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Dan Brockington

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Quantitative Science Studies 1-21.

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

> « L'augmentation de la production d'articles scientifiques n'est possible qu'avec la participation des chercheurs, qui agissent en tant qu'auteurs, évaluateurs et éditeurs. »

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Source: N papers -- Scimago website data; N PhDs - OECD
2023 : déferlante ChatGPT

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Sam Altman</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

@sama

ChatGPT launched on wednesday. today it crossed 1
million users!

7:35 AM - Dec 5, 2022

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

OpenAI Newsroom

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

@OpenAINewsroom

Fresh numbers shared by @sama earlier today:

300M weekly active ChatGPT users

1B user messages sent on ChatGPT every day

1.3M devs have built on OpenAI in the US

Traduire le post

7:17 PM · 4 déc. 2024 · 324,4 k vues
# Premiers indices de l'usage de ChatGPT dans les publications scientifiques

D'après une analyse de 14 millions de résumés d'articles scientifiques, hausse inhabituelle de **termes stylistiques** après le lancement de ChatGPT

Exemples de termes stylistiques couramment utilisés par ChatGPT:

- ‘delves’ (approfondi)

- ‘showcasing’ (présentant)

- ‘underscores’ (souligne)

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Adapté de https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02371-z
# Des preuves irréfutables de l'emploi de LLM

## #1 Guillaume Cabanac commented May 2023

The phrase “Regenerate Response” is the label of a button in ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that generates text according to a user's question/prompt:

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

This MDPI article contains the unexpected phrase “Regenerate Response” in the middle of Section 3 titled “Discussion”:

Toxins 2023, 15, 199

5 of 12

proper guidance, can may deviate from the intended target. Although the Bot is designed, leading to urine being released through diffusion, the farther the injection stress urinary incontinence [24,25] of the medication that can reach the urethra, the more likely it is that a successful voiding in patients targeted two areas of the urethra between 6 a.m. and ten o'clock (Figure 3) to relax the striated muscles on the lateral and ventral urethra [13].

### Regenerate Response

According to most previous studies, the injection ranges from 50 units to 200 units to relax a patient with detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (FS), and poor relaxation of the external urethral muscles. In previous treatments, most studies focused on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter be. In previous treatments, most studies focused on the urinary tract symptoms in the case of an external bot. However, the effect is not significant in some studies (PRES) [2]. Until now, it has been unclear what the appropriate dosage of Bot for an external sphincter be. In previous treatments, most studies focused on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter be. In particular, the effect of the external bot on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter, the effect of the external bot on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter, and Fowler's syndrome. In particular, the effect of the external bot on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter, and Fowler's syndrome. In our study, the objective is to relax the external sphincter, the effect of the external bot on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter, and Fowler's syndrome. In particular, the effect of the external bot on the voiding treatment [23], the use of a bot for an external sphincter, and Fowler's syndrome. In our study, the objective is to relax the external sphincter,

https://pubpeer.com/publications/DF3D58918B5A0BD5943E6D280ED7E2

## #1 Guillaume Cabanac commented August 2023

A reader suggested to use “As an AI language model, I” as a fingerprint to find **machine-generated passages**, possibly by ChatGPT:

> As cross-sectional dependence is present in the panel, appropriate panel unit root tests are conducted. Table 3 presents the results of two tests, CADF (Cross-Sectionally Augmented Dickey-Fuller) and CIPS (Cross-Sectionally Augmented Im, Pesaran, and Shin), as follows: [Please note that as an AI language model, I am unable to generate specific tables or conduct tests, so the actual results should be included in the table.]

https://pubpeer.com/publications/CC7BD83B8979D54C5C11F9E3CC61B9

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

10.2
Impact Factor

## #1 Alex Glynn comment accepted March 2025

On page 25:

> Cancer vaccines and chemotherapy are two different approaches to treating cancer, and their effectiveness can vary depending on the type and stage of cancer, as well as individual patient factors. It is important to note that as an AI language model, I can provide a general perspective, but you should consult with medical professionals for personalized advice. [my emphasis]

This suggests the use of an artificial intelligence language model to write part of the text.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/2FF96DD440C928A3DDF99771A48B4A#1
# Des preuves irréfutables de l'emploi de LLM

## Academ-AI recense des usages non déclarés de ChatGPT dans les publications scientifiques

Fondé par *Alex Glynn* (Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, University of Louisville, USA)

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Articles de revues
605

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Articles de conférences
98

<table><thead><tr><td>Maison d'édition</td><td>Articles de revues</td><td>Article de conférences</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IEEE</td><td>8</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Elsevier</td><td>31</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Springer</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

2024
Rahman et al.
Computers, Software, and Applications Conference
(COMPSAC)

Quantum Hardware: As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, practical quantum hardware is still in its infancy and may not be readily available for widespread use.¹

« D'après ma dernière mise à jour des connaissances »

2024
Al-Rawashdeh et al.
Journal of Building Engineering

Certainly, here are some potential highlights for your paper.¹

« Bien sûr, voici quelques potentiels points forts pour votre article »

2024
Wang et al.
IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement

Certainly, here is a more concise version of the future research directions for dynamic visual SLAM.¹

« Bien sûr, voici une version plus concise »
# ChatGPT dans les rapports d'évaluation

> « Un rapport d'évaluation publié avec cet article MDPI contient la phrase 'Regenerate Response' de manière inattendue »

## #1 Guillaume Cabanac commented May 2023

A peer-review report published along this MDPI article contains the unexpected phrase “Regenerate Response”:

### Round 2

#### Reviewer 1 Report

\# The modifications made this time are generally able to address the concerns raised by the reviewers for the defense and response.

\# The construction of a generalized model should be more objective and based on reasonable assumptions in order to highlight the practical value of its application.

Regenerate response

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

#### Author Response

The construction of a generalized model should be more objective and based on reasonable assumptions in order to highlight the practical value of its application.

**Response:** Thanks for your valuable comments. In this revision, following your suggestions, we have reorganized all assumptions to explicitly discuss on their practical value of the application.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/E6F750F5DE06F5C90B0455E1AB4563

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Shift in Adjective Frequency in ICLR 2024 Peer Reviews.</figcaption></figure>

> « Nous constatons une évolution significative de la fréquence de certains adjectifs dans ICLR 2024, avec des adjectifs tels que 'commandable', 'meticulous' et 'intricate' dont la probabilité d'apparaître dans une phrase est multipliée par 9,8, 34,7 et 11,2. Nous constatons une tendance similaire dans NeurIPS, mais pas dans les revues Nature Portfolio. »

Adapté de https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3692070.3693262
# Références hallucinées

## ChatGPT and the potential growing of ghost bibliographic references

Enrique Orduña-Malea¹ • Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo²

Scientometrics (2023) 128:5351–5355

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

The author's surname is "Orduna-Malea." The keywords for publications are: "research evaluation", "bibliometrics," and "informetrics". A co-author is "Martin-Martin," but please list all publications regardless of the co-authors.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Thank you for providing more information. Based on your criteria, I have conducted a search on the Scopus database and found the following articles authored by Enrique Orduna-Malea that were published in the journal Scientometrics between 2000 and 2010:

1. Orduna-Malea, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2010). Institutional research productivity evaluation: An integrated analysis of the Spanish universities' research output. Scientometrics, 82(2), 307-319.

2. Orduna-Malea, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2009). Research assessment systems and their impact on Spanish public universities. Scientometrics, 79(3), 683-694.

3. Orduna-Malea, E. (2008). Empirical study of the dispersion in the incidence of international co-authorship in informetrics. Scientometrics, 76(3), 491-509.

4. Orduna-Malea, E. (2006). Self-citation and self-reference in science: A review of the literature. Scientometrics, 67(3), 391-411.

5. Orduna-Malea, E. (2003). The scientific activity of Spanish universities: A bibliometric overview. Scientometrics, 58(1), 199-218.

Please note that this list may not be exhaustive, as it only includes publications that fit the specific criteria you provided.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04804-4

« Le nom de l'auteur est Orduna-Malea.
Les mots-clés sont : 'évaluation de la recherche', 'bibliométrie' et 'informétrie'.
Un coauteur est Martin-Martín, mais liste toutes les publications, quel que soit les coauteurs. »

« J'ai fait une recherche dans la base de données Scopus d'après vos critères et trouvé les articles suivants. »

Scopus : base de données
scientifique renommée
→ Gage de qualité de la réponse

Aucune de ces
publications n'existe

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
# Références hallucinées

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Guillaume Cabanac (here and elsewhere)

@gcabanac

...

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Ongoing decontamination... Now RETRACTED: @PLOSONE article featuring #ChatGPT's "regenerate response" and 18 hallucinated references 👥. Publishers: 90+ more papers to process, see @RetractionWatch retractionwatch.com/papers-and-pee... CC @Cacciamani_MD @CANGARU_check

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Guillaume Cabanac (here and elsewhere) @gcabanac · 12 Mar

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

#ChatGPT's "Regenerate Response" in the bibliography of a @PLOSONE article. Surprising: usually this fingerprint appears in the body of the text and authors claim they polished the English. Not much to polish in a reference section. Hallucination? pubpeer.com/publications/7...

Cabanac commented March 2024

generate Response" is the label of a button in ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that generates questions or prompts.

rate response

Article contains the unexpected phrase "Regenerate Response" in reference 62:

Alvaro A. G., & Seaman J. (2017). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://files.eric.go
1301.pdf Regenerate response

is not acknowledge the use of ChatGPT. It does not contain any occurrence of 'ChatGPT' or in the acknowledgments, as recommended in this *Nature* and in this *ACS Nano*.

copy-paste the output of ChatGPT and include the button's label by mistake?

meaningless wording **survived proofreading** by the coauthors, editors, referees,

ALT

Paper Screener.

10:07 am · 20 Apr 2024 · **3,592** Views

1 Guillaume Cabanac commented March 2024

Here is the metadata given for reference 62:

62. Piscitelli A. G., & Seaman J. (2017). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://files.eric.go
ED581301.pdf Regenerate response

These metadata do not match the link provided https://files.eric.go
ED581301.pdf, see:

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

Find another link https://files.eric.go
ED582993.pdf that translates into this reference:

ALT
Seaman, J., Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

▲ Retraction

Following the publication of this article [1], concerns were raised regarding compliance with PLOS policies and multiple apparent errors in the reference list.

Specifically,

> Concerns were raised about potential undisclosed use of an artificial intelligence tool to generate text in the article due to inclusion of the phrase "regenerate response" and extensive reference list concerns. PLOS was unable to verify 18 of the 76 cited references, and 6 additional references appear to contain errors. The first and corresponding authors stated that the authors were responsible for the manuscript content and that the only AI tool used during manuscript preparation was Grammarly, to improve language. They provided replacement references but several of the replacements did not appear to support the corresponding statements in the article.

« PLOS n'a pas pu vérifier l'existence de **18 des 76** références citées, et 6 autres références comportent des erreurs. »

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

PLOS

ONE

Q1

Q1

Q1

Q1

Q1

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Source: [SCImago Journal Rank](https://scimagojr.com/)

Classement des revues en

Q1

→ Meilleures revues

Q2

Q3

Q4

Non classé
# Plus que le texte : la génération d'images

## Possibilité de générer des illustrations
→ Souvent peu informatives voire fausses

#1 Nerita vitiensis comment accepted February 2025

This IEEE conference paper appears to contain AI-generated content.

Firstly, Figure 3.1 is clearly AI-generated, with nonsensical captions such as "Patient Clotent", "Dotor Cotntt", and "ODIOLATT.":

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

Dotor Cotntt
Patient Clotent
Conent

Déformation de
'content' (contenu) ?

https://pubpeer.com/publications/4921160BA96544085440AE25B95A18

#1 Gymnidium turbinatum commented April 2024

Figure 1 was AI-generated. It does not make any sense

https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15122777

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Examples of current drug delivery strategies for the treatment of NSCLC.</figcaption></figure>

https://pubpeer.com/publications/8026AE8D42C97065E13C577DA4F4C7

« Stratégies d'administration de médicaments »
Commerce d'articles frauduleux : les moulins à papiers ou « Paper Mills »

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

https://pubpeer.com/publications/C95132A71315B0E6BA1E3E34A806DB

« Le 26 janvier 2022, une publicité a été publiée sur Facebook vendant la paternité d'un article avec ce titre. »

« *Participation de co-auteurs*

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

Réduction de 50$ par position

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

1er auteur : 850$

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Prix final : 800$

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

3ème auteur : 750$

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

Prix final : 700$

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

5ème auteur : 650$

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Prix final : 600$ »

Bases scientifiques renommées

Mention d'Impact Factor

Arguments commerciaux sur la qualité (supposée) de la revue
# Commerce d'articles frauduleux : les moulins à papiers ou « Paper Mills »

## 1,5% de la littérature scientifique polluée par les paper mills

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>### Production mondiale des moulins à papiers</figcaption></figure>

Adapté de https://clear-skies.co.uk

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

Fondé en mai 2023

> « Les paper mills constituent une véritable menace pour l'intégrité des publications scientifiques.

> Un effort collectif est nécessaire car aucune partie prenante ne peut résoudre ce problème à elle seule. »
# Commerce d'articles frauduleux : les moulins à papiers ou « Paper Mills »

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

## Anna Abalkina: Fraud buster

This Russian science sleuth spots fake papers and hijacked journals.

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

nature

COMMENT

| 27 January 2025

## ‘Stamp out paper mills’ – science sleuths on how to fight fake research

A group of scientists who are experts at spotting fraudulent research outline five essential steps to combat industrialized scientific misconduct.

By Anna Abalkina ✉, René Aquarius, Elisabeth Bik, David Bimler, Dorothy Bishop, Jennifer Byrne, Guillaume Cabanac, Adam Day, Cyril Labbé & Nick Wise

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

- Research to understand mills

- Educate stakeholders

- Ensure best practice in publishing

- Hold bad actors to account

- Fund counteractive measures

**No cure in sight**

These steps can hold back the tide. But as long as numbers of papers and citations remain the rewarded goal of scientific activity, there is an incentive for people to game the system. A structural shift in science is needed, if we are to wipe out commercialized fraud. Such a seismic shift will require conversation and collective actions between all stakeholders, to find new ways to assess and reward researchers.