US-based packaged food giant <strong>Kellogg</strong>’s spinoff, India’s biggest tobacco retailer ITC and nutrition platform Healthkart are among a string of suitors in a race to ......

Kellogg's spinoff, others in fray to pick up majority stake in local health snacks player

A measure of consumer confidence continues to retreat on less upbeat assessments of business and labor conditions. The Conference Board reported its Consumer Confidence Index fell 1.7 points to 102.6 in October for a third consecutive month of declines.

Consumer Confidence Index continues to retreat

Industrial manufacturing major Siemens and tech giant Microsoft on Tuesday joined hands to bring the benefits of generative AI to industries worldwide.

Siemens, Microsoft join hands to work on AI project

Asit, let's start with the household name, pantry staple Kellogg spawn out its cereal business ... one thing I think this says is that it's really hard to make money in consumer goods for investors right now because we've got this inflation which seems ...

A Food-Focused Episode

University of Michigan's measure of consumer sentiment fell after two steady months on increased worries from high earners and elevated inflation expectations.

Inflation Drives Consumer Sentiment Lower, Raises Interest Rate Fears

Explore three undervalued spinoff stocks positioned for significant growth following recent market downturns. Unearth hidden gems in today's market landscape

Three Overlooked Companies Ready To Soar Post-Stock Market Fall

Buff Greebe was working in Mexico City for pharmaceutical giant GSK PLC. His kids were nearing high school age. And, he and his wife, also a globetrotting consumer brands leader, were wondering what they should do next to give their kids the best start in life possible.

Journal Profile: Meet Buff Greebe, a globetrotting brand man with a taste for classical music

Baldwin Richardson Foods, a leading manufacturer of food and beverage ingredients and one of the largest African-American family-owned and operated businesses in the food industry, has announced Erin M.

BALDWIN RICHARDSON FOODS NAMES ERIN TOLEFREE CEO AND PRESIDENT

South Korea's consumer sentiment slid for the third straight month in October amid woes over an economic slowdown, slumping exports and weakened spending power, a central bank poll showed Wednesday. The composite consumer sentiment index stood at 98.

Consumer sentiment slides for 3rd month in October amid slowdown woes

Kellogg

kellogg

Authors:
(1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: );
(2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract The emergent abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), which power tools like ChatGPT and Bard, have produced both excitement and worry about how AI will impact academic writing. In response to rising concerns about AI use, authors of academic publications may decide to voluntarily disclose any AI tools they use to revise their manuscripts, and journals and conferences could begin mandating disclosure and/or turn to using detection services, as many teachers have done with student writing in class settings. Given these looming possibilities, we investigate whether academics view it as necessary to report AI use in manuscript preparation and how detectors react to the use of AI in academic writing. 1 Introduction There is both excitement and concern about the impact that artificial intelligence (AI) could have on our world. In academia, this has inspired an explosion of research around AI. Some researchers are leveraging AI to help in answering research questions; for example, as a tool for performing statistical or textual analyses (e.g., Mullainathan and Spiess 2017, Athey and Imbens 2019, Fudenberg and A. Liang 2019, Farrell, T. Liang, and Misra 2020, Rambachan et al. 2021, Björkegren, Blumenstock, and Knight 2022, Capra, Gomies, and Zhang 2023, Franchi et al. 2023, Salah, Al Halbusi, and Abdelfattah 2023), or for the design or implementation of experiments (e.g., Beck et al. 2020, Charness, Jabarian, and List 2023, Horton 2023). Others have focused more on the interaction of humans with AI systems (e.g., Dietvorst, Simmons, and Massey 2015, Deza, Surana, and Eckstein 2019, Gajos and Mamykina 2022, Steyvers et al. 2022, Sundar and Lee 2022, Tejeda et al. 2022, Wang, C. Liang, and Yin 2023, Yang, M. Palma, and A. Drichoutis 2023) and the larger societal ramifications of AI (e.g., Agrawal, Gans, and Goldfarb 2019, Lambrecht and Tucker 2019, Obermeyer et al. 2019, Yang, M. A. Palma, and A. C. Drichoutis 2023, Chien et al. 2020, Rolf et al. 2020, Zuiderwijk, Chen, and Salem 2021, Pallathadka et al. 2023, Ray 2023, H. Singh and A. Singh 2023). In terms of societal ramifications, one topic of interest is how AI will impact academia itself, especially given the emergent abilities of Large Language Models (LLM), which power tools like ChatGPT and Bard. Most of this research has centered on student use of AI to complete course or degree requirements (e.g., Cowen and Tabarrok 2023, Daun and Brings 2023, Fyfe 2023, Ibrahim et al. 2023, Jungherr 2023, Malik et al. 2023, Schmohl et al. 2020, Shahriar and Hayawi 2023). However, there has been less focus on the impact that AI is having and might have on manuscript preparation for academic journals, even though the impact this could have on science, and the propagation of scientific results, is potentially large. An exception is Korinek (2023), who documents several use cases for LLMs for researchers, including academic writing. He notes, “LLMs can edit text for grammatical or spelling mistakes, style, clarity, or simplicity.” As a result, this class of tools “allows researchers to concentrate their energy on the ideas in their text as opposed to the writing process itself.” In particular, “this set of capabilities are perhaps most useful for non-native speakers who want to improve their writing.” The potential impact of these tools is validated by the emergence of companies that help academics leverage LLM in their writing. Some of those initiatives are even run by professors from academia, such as online workshops that teach researchers how to use ChatGPT for academic publishing. However, an emerging set of papers (e.g., Altmäe, Sola-Leyva, and Salumets 2023, Thorp 2023, Shahriar and Hayawi 2023 and Hill-Yardin et al. 2023) detail some practical and ethical concerns with the use of these tools in preparing manuscripts for academic journals. For example, AI can generate a text with mistakes, including incorrect math, reasoning, logic, factual information, and citations (even producing references to scientific papers that do not exist). There are many welldocumented examples where LLM’s “hallucinate” and provide completely fictitious information. On top of this, these tools may also produce text that is biased against particular groups. These issues are exacerbated by the “black box” nature of LLM suggestions, meaning that we lack an understanding of how they work (e.g., Bommasani et al. 2021). Given these issues, liabilities arise when authors submit papers without fully vetting the text generated by LLMs. In addition, given that they are trained on a corpus of other writing and not the author’s own writing, using the output of tools like ChatGPT and Bard without proper attribution could be considered plagiarism. Because of these concerns, authors may voluntarily choose to disclose whether they have used LLMs in preparing their manuscripts, as suggested by Bom (2023). However, given well-documented failures of disclosure in the field and lab (e.g., Dranove and Jin 2010, Jin, Luca, and Martin 2015), journals, conferences, and associations may respond by mandating disclosure through reporting requirements, as is already done for conflict-of-interest issues. For example, Elsevier limits the use of AI by authors “only to improve the language and readability of their paper” and requires “the appropriate disclosure... at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references.” See Table 6 in Appendix B for a list of major publishers who have voluntary and mandatory disclosure policies for AI use. To enforce these reporting requirements, journals, conferences, and associations might turn to using detection services, as many teachers have done with student writing in class settings. The use of LLMs in writing is potentially detectable because as Korinek (2023) notes, “Some observe that [LLM writing] is, naturally, a bit sterile and lacks the idiosyncrasies and elements of surprise that characterize human writing – a feature that detectors of LLM-written text zero in on.” Given these looming possibilities, we investigate whether academics view reporting AI use in manuscript preparation as necessary and how detectors react to the use of AI in manuscript preparation. We first conducted a survey of academics in which we elicited perceptions about reporting assistance in manuscript preparation. We then used GPT-3.5 to revise abstracts from the past 10 years of Management Science by asking the software program to either fix grammar or rewrite text. Finally, we ran the original abstracts and revised abstracts through a leading paid AI detection service. We have three main findings. First, as shown partially in Figure 1, the academics we surveyed were less likely to think that using AI to fix the grammar in manuscripts should be reported than using AI to rewrite manuscripts, but detection software did not always draw this distinction, as abstracts for which GPT-3.5 was used to fix grammar were often flagged as having a high chance of being written by AI. Second, we found little difference in preferences for reporting ChatGPT and research assistant (RA) help, but significant differences in reporting preferences between these sources of assistance and paid proofreading and other AI assistant tools (Grammarly and Word). Third, we found disagreements among the academics we surveyed on whether using ChatGPT to rewrite text needs should be reported, and differences were related to perceptions of ethics, academic role, and English language background. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces our survey design and our method for testing ChatGPT use with AI detection algorithms. Section 3 shows our main results. Finally, section 4 discusses some limitations of our work, open questions arising from our results, and suggestions for future research. Figure 1: Reporting views (a) vs. detection results (b). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Authors: Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion References References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract The emergent abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), which power tools like ChatGPT and Bard, have produced both excitement and worry about how AI will impact academic writing. In response to rising concerns about AI use, authors of academic publications may decide to voluntarily disclose any AI tools they use to revise their manuscripts, and journals and conferences could begin mandating disclosure and/or turn to using detection services, as many teachers have done with student writing in class settings. Given these looming possibilities, we investigate whether academics view it as necessary to report AI use in manuscript preparation and how detectors react to the use of AI in academic writing. 1 Introduction There is both excitement and concern about the impact that artificial intelligence (AI) could have on our world. In academia, this has inspired an explosion of research around AI. Some researchers are leveraging AI to help in answering research questions; for example, as a tool for performing statistical or textual analyses (e.g., Mullainathan and Spiess 2017, Athey and Imbens 2019, Fudenberg and A. Liang 2019, Farrell, T. Liang, and Misra 2020, Rambachan et al. 2021, Björkegren, Blumenstock, and Knight 2022, Capra, Gomies, and Zhang 2023, Franchi et al. 2023, Salah, Al Halbusi, and Abdelfattah 2023), or for the design or implementation of experiments (e.g., Beck et al. 2020, Charness, Jabarian, and List 2023, Horton 2023). Others have focused more on the interaction of humans with AI systems (e.g., Dietvorst, Simmons, and Massey 2015, Deza, Surana, and Eckstein 2019, Gajos and Mamykina 2022, Steyvers et al. 2022, Sundar and Lee 2022, Tejeda et al. 2022, Wang, C. Liang, and Yin 2023, Yang, M. Palma, and A. Drichoutis 2023) and the larger societal ramifications of AI (e.g., Agrawal, Gans, and Goldfarb 2019, Lambrecht and Tucker 2019, Obermeyer et al. 2019, Yang, M. A. Palma, and A. C. Drichoutis 2023, Chien et al. 2020, Rolf et al. 2020, Zuiderwijk, Chen, and Salem 2021, Pallathadka et al. 2023, Ray 2023, H. Singh and A. Singh 2023). In terms of societal ramifications, one topic of interest is how AI will impact academia itself, especially given the emergent abilities of Large Language Models (LLM), which power tools like ChatGPT and Bard. Most of this research has centered on student use of AI to complete course or degree requirements (e.g., Cowen and Tabarrok 2023, Daun and Brings 2023, Fyfe 2023, Ibrahim et al. 2023, Jungherr 2023, Malik et al. 2023, Schmohl et al. 2020, Shahriar and Hayawi 2023). However, there has been less focus on the impact that AI is having and might have on manuscript preparation for academic journals, even though the impact this could have on science, and the propagation of scientific results, is potentially large. An exception is Korinek (2023), who documents several use cases for LLMs for researchers, including academic writing. He notes, “LLMs can edit text for grammatical or spelling mistakes, style, clarity, or simplicity.” As a result, this class of tools “allows researchers to concentrate their energy on the ideas in their text as opposed to the writing process itself.” In particular, “this set of capabilities are perhaps most useful for non-native speakers who want to improve their writing.” The potential impact of these tools is validated by the emergence of companies that help academics leverage LLM in their writing. Some of those initiatives are even run by professors from academia, such as online workshops that teach researchers how to use ChatGPT for academic publishing. However, an emerging set of papers (e.g., Altmäe, Sola-Leyva, and Salumets 2023, Thorp 2023, Shahriar and Hayawi 2023 and Hill-Yardin et al. 2023) detail some practical and ethical concerns with the use of these tools in preparing manuscripts for academic journals. For example, AI can generate a text with mistakes, including incorrect math, reasoning, logic, factual information, and citations (even producing references to scientific papers that do not exist). There are many welldocumented examples where LLM’s “hallucinate” and provide completely fictitious information. On top of this, these tools may also produce text that is biased against particular groups. These issues are exacerbated by the “black box” nature of LLM suggestions, meaning that we lack an understanding of how they work (e.g., Bommasani et al. 2021). Given these issues, liabilities arise when authors submit papers without fully vetting the text generated by LLMs. In addition, given that they are trained on a corpus of other writing and not the author’s own writing, using the output of tools like ChatGPT and Bard without proper attribution could be considered plagiarism. Because of these concerns, authors may voluntarily choose to disclose whether they have used LLMs in preparing their manuscripts, as suggested by Bom (2023). However, given well-documented failures of disclosure in the field and lab (e.g., Dranove and Jin 2010, Jin, Luca, and Martin 2015), journals, conferences, and associations may respond by mandating disclosure through reporting requirements, as is already done for conflict-of-interest issues. For example, Elsevier limits the use of AI by authors “only to improve the language and readability of their paper” and requires “the appropriate disclosure... at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references.” See Table 6 in Appendix B for a list of major publishers who have voluntary and mandatory disclosure policies for AI use. To enforce these reporting requirements, journals, conferences, and associations might turn to using detection services, as many teachers have done with student writing in class settings. The use of LLMs in writing is potentially detectable because as Korinek (2023) notes, “Some observe that [LLM writing] is, naturally, a bit sterile and lacks the idiosyncrasies and elements of surprise that characterize human writing – a feature that detectors of LLM-written text zero in on.” Given these looming possibilities, we investigate whether academics view reporting AI use in manuscript preparation as necessary and how detectors react to the use of AI in manuscript preparation. We first conducted a survey of academics in which we elicited perceptions about reporting assistance in manuscript preparation. We then used GPT-3.5 to revise abstracts from the past 10 years of Management Science by asking the software program to either fix grammar or rewrite text. Finally, we ran the original abstracts and revised abstracts through a leading paid AI detection service. We have three main findings. First, as shown partially in Figure 1, the academics we surveyed were less likely to think that using AI to fix the grammar in manuscripts should be reported than using AI to rewrite manuscripts, but detection software did not always draw this distinction, as abstracts for which GPT-3.5 was used to fix grammar were often flagged as having a high chance of being written by AI. Second, we found little difference in preferences for reporting ChatGPT and research assistant (RA) help, but significant differences in reporting preferences between these sources of assistance and paid proofreading and other AI assistant tools (Grammarly and Word). Third, we found disagreements among the academics we surveyed on whether using ChatGPT to rewrite text needs should be reported, and differences were related to perceptions of ethics, academic role, and English language background. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces our survey design and our method for testing ChatGPT use with AI detection algorithms. Section 3 shows our main results. Finally, section 4 discusses some limitations of our work, open questions arising from our results, and suggestions for future research. Figure 1: Reporting views (a) vs. detection results (b). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals: Abstract and Introduction

Authors:
(1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: );
(2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals A Survey Screenshots B Additional Tables Table 3 provides summary statistics for whether authors should acknowledge different forms of assistance. The top panel provides the average responses broken out by being a native English speaker or not, and the bottom panel by being a professor or not. Table 4 shows the results of asking if it is unethical to use ChatGPT to correct the grammar or rewrite the text in a manuscript for an academic journal. For fixing grammar, there is a consensus that it is ethical to use ChatGPT, with 94% of the researchers replying that it is not unethical. However, for rewriting, this becomes more open questions with only 61% respondents thinking that is not unethical. We allow respondents to answer “maybe” to these questions to identify which researchers are uncertain about this question. However, in our analysis, we categorize respondents into those who believe it is ethical and those who either answered that it is unethical or indicate that it is “maybe” unethical. When we compare native English speakers to non-native ones, we find that there is not a significant difference in perceptions of ethics around fixing grammar: 7% compared to 5% (twosample test of proportions yields p=0.211). However, when it comes to rewriting text, 46% of native English speakers think that it is unethical to use ChatGPT, compared to 36% of non-native speakers. A two-sample test of proportions yields p = 0.121 on a two-tailed test or p = 0.060 on the one-tailed. When we compare professors to students and postdocs, we do not find any significant difference for either fixing grammar and rewriting text (for grammar p=0.76 and for rewrite p=0.977). Finally, Table 5 shows the perceptions of respondents regarding whether one should report the use of the ChatGPT for assistance in manuscript preparation. This includes those who consider it ethical to use it and those who believe it to be unethical or are unsure (answered “maybe”). A significant difference exists among these groups. When researchers perceive it as ethical to use ChatGPT, only 21% (30%) believe that reporting is necessary when using it for grammar correction (rewriting). In contrast, researchers who view it as unethical or are uncertain about its ethics have a higher percentage, with 47% (87%) believing that reporting is necessary. This difference among the groups is significant. A two-sample test of proportions yields p=0.017 (0.0001). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Authors: Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion References References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals A Survey Screenshots B Additional Tables Table 3 provides summary statistics for whether authors should acknowledge different forms of assistance. The top panel provides the average responses broken out by being a native English speaker or not, and the bottom panel by being a professor or not. Table 4 shows the results of asking if it is unethical to use ChatGPT to correct the grammar or rewrite the text in a manuscript for an academic journal. For fixing grammar, there is a consensus that it is ethical to use ChatGPT, with 94% of the researchers replying that it is not unethical. However, for rewriting, this becomes more open questions with only 61% respondents thinking that is not unethical. We allow respondents to answer “maybe” to these questions to identify which researchers are uncertain about this question. However, in our analysis, we categorize respondents into those who believe it is ethical and those who either answered that it is unethical or indicate that it is “maybe” unethical. When we compare native English speakers to non-native ones, we find that there is not a significant difference in perceptions of ethics around fixing grammar: 7% compared to 5% (twosample test of proportions yields p=0.211). However, when it comes to rewriting text, 46% of native English speakers think that it is unethical to use ChatGPT, compared to 36% of non-native speakers. A two-sample test of proportions yields p = 0.121 on a two-tailed test or p = 0.060 on the one-tailed. When we compare professors to students and postdocs, we do not find any significant difference for either fixing grammar and rewriting text (for grammar p=0.76 and for rewrite p=0.977). Finally, Table 5 shows the perceptions of respondents regarding whether one should report the use of the ChatGPT for assistance in manuscript preparation. This includes those who consider it ethical to use it and those who believe it to be unethical or are unsure (answered “maybe”). A significant difference exists among these groups. When researchers perceive it as ethical to use ChatGPT, only 21% (30%) believe that reporting is necessary when using it for grammar correction (rewriting). In contrast, researchers who view it as unethical or are uncertain about its ethics have a higher percentage, with 47% (87%) believing that reporting is necessary. This difference among the groups is significant. A two-sample test of proportions yields p=0.017 (0.0001). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals: Appendix for Perceptions and Detection 

Authors:
(1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: );
(2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals 3 Results 3.1 Reporting Views and Detection Evaluations Figure 1 presents the fraction of survey respondents who indicated that using ChatGPT to fix grammar or rewrite text should be acknowledged. We find substantial differences in reporting views between using ChatGPT for fixing grammar and using it to rewrite text, with 22% of the respondents indicating that grammar correction should be reported relative to 52% for text rewriting (a two-sided test of proportions gives p<0.0001). These perceptions were cleanly nested, as 95% of respondents who thought grammar should be reported also thought rewriting should be reported (only 3 respondents thought that fixing grammar should be reported but not rewriting.) On aggregate, survey respondents viewed these types of AI use differently, but did the AI detector we study treat them differently? Figure 2 shows that the distribution of AI scores is skewed more to the right for abstracts revised using the Rewrite 1 prompt than for those revised using the Grammar 1 prompt. However, both Grammar 1 and Rewrite 1 produce a large number of high AI scores, and if we look again in Figure 1, the 75th percentile values of the AI scores for the abstracts produced by these two prompts are both near the maximal value. It is worth noting that while the detector gave abstracts revised using both prompts high scores, gave much lower scores to the original abstracts. Thus, it had a high degree of accuracy in separating manuscripts that were not revised by ChatGPT from those that were revised in some way. However, this analysis does not indicate how Grammar 1 and Rewrite 1 compare for a given abstract. It could be that abstracts always had higher AI scores when the Rewrite 1 prompt was used. Looking at the abstract level, 2.2% of abstracts had the same AI score for both types of prompts and 24.2% of abstracts had an higher AI score when the Grammar 1 prompt was used than when the Rewrite 1 prompt was used. These results combine to produce our first main finding: Main Finding 3.1 The academics we surveyed were less likely to think that using AI to fix the grammar in manuscripts should be reported than using AI to rewrite manuscripts, but detection software did not always draw this distinction, as abstracts for which GPT-3.5 was used to fix grammar were often flagged as having a high chance of being written by AI. 3.2 Heterogeneity of Perceptions When we compare our survey results for different sources of assistance, we find very similar reporting preferences between ChatGPT and the help of a research assistant (RA) for grammar correction or for rewriting text, which is illustrated in Figure 2. More detailed summary statistics are provided in Appendix B. Comparing the difference between RA and ChatGPT for fixing grammar and rewriting text, we find no significant difference (p=0.5418 for fixing grammar and p=0.6062 for rewriting for two-sided tests of proportions). However, respondents indicated that other tools used for fixing grammar, such as Grammarly and Word, should be acknowledged at even lower rates than ChatGPT, even though these tools might provide users with similar grammar corrections as ChatGPT. Only 14% (5%) of those completing the survey responded that researchers should report using Grammarly (Word) to fix grammar for academic text. A two-sided test of proportions between reporting ChatGPT and Grammarly (Word) for fixing grammar gives p=0.0100 (p<0.0001). This might indicate that researchers are unfamiliar with the differences between these tools, especially given that Grammarly uses some AI models (Fitria 2021). Alternatively, respondents may be so familiar with those tools that they are less worried about their influence on academic writing compared to ChatGPT, which is relatively new. Finally, only 27% of those completing the survey responded that proofreading services should be acknowledged for rewriting academic text, which is much lower than for ChatGPT (52%) and for RA help (49.6%). A two-sided test of proportions comparing ChatGPT to proofreading for rewriting text gives p<0.0001. One explanation for this result could be that proofreading might be considered to be closer to fixing grammar than rewriting text (even that we explicitly stated that proofreading would be used for rewriting text). Another potential explanation could stem from an academic norm related to acknowledging this service or the fact that this service is paid. This leads to our second main finding: Main Finding 3.2 We found little difference in preferences for reporting ChatGPT and RA help, but significant differences in reporting preferences between these sources of assistance and paid proofreading and other AI assistant tools (Grammarly and Word). Next, we investigate the potential reasons why some academics we surveyed thought that using ChatGPT to rewrite text should be reported and why others did not. Figure 4 shows how reporting preferences differ by English language background (native speaker or not), academic role (professor or not), and perceptions of ethics (whether using ChatGPT to rewrite text is unethical or not). To increase statistical power, we collapse role into professor or not and pool together those who answered either “yes” or “maybe” to the survey question on the ethics of using ChatGPT to rewrite text. When we compare native English speakers to non-native ones, we find that on average native speakers are more inclined towards reporting the use of ChatGPT for rewriting text. When we compare professors (both tenured and untenured) to students and postdocs we find that, on average, postdocs and students are more likely to believe that authors should acknowledge the use of ChatGPT when rewriting text. One possible explanation is that early career researchers are more conservative because they are unfamiliar with the norms in the profession and prefer to take the safer option and report. On the other hand, they may have a better sense of the power of these tools, and hence might feel that reporting is more necessary. Finally, we find large differences in reporting preferences based on perceptions of ethics. Survey respondents who believe that it is unethical to use ChatGPT to rewrite text are almost three times more likely to believe that it should be reported. A more detailed analysis of perceptions of ethics is provided in Appendix B. When we run an OLS regression analysis with only English language background (dummy variable Native=1) and academic role (dummy variable Professor=1) as the explanatory variables, as presented in first column of Table 2, we find that the coefficients are significant at the 5% and 10% level for Native and Professor respectively. However, when we add perceptions of ethics to the regression, the effect for Native becomes weaker and less significant. This suggests that some of this effect was due to differences in perceptions of ethics between native and non-native speakers of English. Main Finding 3.3 We found disagreements among the academics we surveyed about whether using Chat-GPT to rewrite text needs to be reported, and differences were related to perceptions of ethics, academic role, and English language background. 3.3 Detection Robustness First, we compare the 75th percentile of AI scores across all of the prompts provided in Table 1, and Figure 5 shows that we find no perceptible differences for Grammar 2 and Rewrite 2. However, we find that dropping the requirement that the GPT-3.5 output be only one paragraph dramatically reduces the 75th percentile value when revising grammar (Grammar 1b). However, the result is more robust if we consider the 90th percentile instead, as shown in Figure 6. Second, we checked if the 75th percentile values of the AI scores were different in the years before and after the launch of ChatGPT. Looking at the 75th percentile of AI scores in Figure 7, we find a very slight decrease in the 75th percentile AI scores for original abstracts that appeared in 2023. Given this small change for original abstracts, it might not be surprisingly that we do not see much of a difference for Grammar 1 or Rewrite 1. Third, we ran 1,016 of our abstracts through ChatGPT twice to test for the variability in AI scores due to any stochasticity in ChatGPT. Figure 8 shows that there is very little difference in the 75th percentile of scores. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Authors: Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion References References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals 3 Results 3.1 Reporting Views and Detection Evaluations Figure 1 presents the fraction of survey respondents who indicated that using ChatGPT to fix grammar or rewrite text should be acknowledged. We find substantial differences in reporting views between using ChatGPT for fixing grammar and using it to rewrite text, with 22% of the respondents indicating that grammar correction should be reported relative to 52% for text rewriting (a two-sided test of proportions gives p<0.0001). These perceptions were cleanly nested, as 95% of respondents who thought grammar should be reported also thought rewriting should be reported (only 3 respondents thought that fixing grammar should be reported but not rewriting.) On aggregate, survey respondents viewed these types of AI use differently, but did the AI detector we study treat them differently? Figure 2 shows that the distribution of AI scores is skewed more to the right for abstracts revised using the Rewrite 1 prompt than for those revised using the Grammar 1 prompt. However, both Grammar 1 and Rewrite 1 produce a large number of high AI scores, and if we look again in Figure 1, the 75th percentile values of the AI scores for the abstracts produced by these two prompts are both near the maximal value. It is worth noting that while the detector gave abstracts revised using both prompts high scores, gave much lower scores to the original abstracts. Thus, it had a high degree of accuracy in separating manuscripts that were not revised by ChatGPT from those that were revised in some way. However, this analysis does not indicate how Grammar 1 and Rewrite 1 compare for a given abstract. It could be that abstracts always had higher AI scores when the Rewrite 1 prompt was used. Looking at the abstract level, 2.2% of abstracts had the same AI score for both types of prompts and 24.2% of abstracts had an higher AI score when the Grammar 1 prompt was used than when the Rewrite 1 prompt was used. These results combine to produce our first main finding: Main Finding 3.1 The academics we surveyed were less likely to think that using AI to fix the grammar in manuscripts should be reported than using AI to rewrite manuscripts, but detection software did not always draw this distinction, as abstracts for which GPT-3.5 was used to fix grammar were often flagged as having a high chance of being written by AI. Main Finding 3.1 The academics we surveyed were less likely to think that using AI to fix the grammar in manuscripts should be reported than using AI to rewrite manuscripts, but detection software did not always draw this distinction, as abstracts for which GPT-3.5 was used to fix grammar were often flagged as having a high chance of being written by AI. 3.2 Heterogeneity of Perceptions When we compare our survey results for different sources of assistance, we find very similar reporting preferences between ChatGPT and the help of a research assistant (RA) for grammar correction or for rewriting text, which is illustrated in Figure 2. More detailed summary statistics are provided in Appendix B. Comparing the difference between RA and ChatGPT for fixing grammar and rewriting text, we find no significant difference (p=0.5418 for fixing grammar and p=0.6062 for rewriting for two-sided tests of proportions). However, respondents indicated that other tools used for fixing grammar, such as Grammarly and Word, should be acknowledged at even lower rates than ChatGPT, even though these tools might provide users with similar grammar corrections as ChatGPT. Only 14% (5%) of those completing the survey responded that researchers should report using Grammarly (Word) to fix grammar for academic text. A two-sided test of proportions between reporting ChatGPT and Grammarly (Word) for fixing grammar gives p=0.0100 (p<0.0001). This might indicate that researchers are unfamiliar with the differences between these tools, especially given that Grammarly uses some AI models (Fitria 2021). Alternatively, respondents may be so familiar with those tools that they are less worried about their influence on academic writing compared to ChatGPT, which is relatively new. Finally, only 27% of those completing the survey responded that proofreading services should be acknowledged for rewriting academic text, which is much lower than for ChatGPT (52%) and for RA help (49.6%). A two-sided test of proportions comparing ChatGPT to proofreading for rewriting text gives p<0.0001. One explanation for this result could be that proofreading might be considered to be closer to fixing grammar than rewriting text (even that we explicitly stated that proofreading would be used for rewriting text). Another potential explanation could stem from an academic norm related to acknowledging this service or the fact that this service is paid. This leads to our second main finding: Main Finding 3.2 We found little difference in preferences for reporting ChatGPT and RA help, but significant differences in reporting preferences between these sources of assistance and paid proofreading and other AI assistant tools (Grammarly and Word). Main Finding 3.2 We found little difference in preferences for reporting ChatGPT and RA help, but significant differences in reporting preferences between these sources of assistance and paid proofreading and other AI assistant tools (Grammarly and Word). Next, we investigate the potential reasons why some academics we surveyed thought that using ChatGPT to rewrite text should be reported and why others did not. Figure 4 shows how reporting preferences differ by English language background (native speaker or not), academic role (professor or not), and perceptions of ethics (whether using ChatGPT to rewrite text is unethical or not). To increase statistical power, we collapse role into professor or not and pool together those who answered either “yes” or “maybe” to the survey question on the ethics of using ChatGPT to rewrite text. When we compare native English speakers to non-native ones, we find that on average native speakers are more inclined towards reporting the use of ChatGPT for rewriting text. When we compare professors (both tenured and untenured) to students and postdocs we find that, on average, postdocs and students are more likely to believe that authors should acknowledge the use of ChatGPT when rewriting text. One possible explanation is that early career researchers are more conservative because they are unfamiliar with the norms in the profession and prefer to take the safer option and report. On the other hand, they may have a better sense of the power of these tools, and hence might feel that reporting is more necessary. Finally, we find large differences in reporting preferences based on perceptions of ethics. Survey respondents who believe that it is unethical to use ChatGPT to rewrite text are almost three times more likely to believe that it should be reported. A more detailed analysis of perceptions of ethics is provided in Appendix B. When we run an OLS regression analysis with only English language background (dummy variable Native=1) and academic role (dummy variable Professor=1) as the explanatory variables, as presented in first column of Table 2, we find that the coefficients are significant at the 5% and 10% level for Native and Professor respectively. However, when we add perceptions of ethics to the regression, the effect for Native becomes weaker and less significant. This suggests that some of this effect was due to differences in perceptions of ethics between native and non-native speakers of English. Main Finding 3.3 We found disagreements among the academics we surveyed about whether using Chat-GPT to rewrite text needs to be reported, and differences were related to perceptions of ethics, academic role, and English language background. Main Finding 3.3 We found disagreements among the academics we surveyed about whether using Chat-GPT to rewrite text needs to be reported, and differences were related to perceptions of ethics, academic role, and English language background. 3.3 Detection Robustness First, we compare the 75th percentile of AI scores across all of the prompts provided in Table 1, and Figure 5 shows that we find no perceptible differences for Grammar 2 and Rewrite 2. However, we find that dropping the requirement that the GPT-3.5 output be only one paragraph dramatically reduces the 75th percentile value when revising grammar (Grammar 1b). However, the result is more robust if we consider the 90th percentile instead, as shown in Figure 6. Second, we checked if the 75th percentile values of the AI scores were different in the years before and after the launch of ChatGPT. Looking at the 75th percentile of AI scores in Figure 7, we find a very slight decrease in the 75th percentile AI scores for original abstracts that appeared in 2023. Given this small change for original abstracts, it might not be surprisingly that we do not see much of a difference for Grammar 1 or Rewrite 1. Third, we ran 1,016 of our abstracts through ChatGPT twice to test for the variability in AI scores due to any stochasticity in ChatGPT. Figure 8 shows that there is very little difference in the 75th percentile of scores. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals: Results

Authors:
(1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: );
(2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals 4 Discussion Our findings are a starting point for future research and suggest that several issues need to be carefully considered by the academic community. For instance, the community needs to decide which forms of assistance should be reported, whether it be ChatGPT or some other source, such as RA help or help from another AI tool. Additionally, it needs to decide which types of assistance to be reported, be it fixing grammar or something more extensive. We found more consensus that using ChatGPT to fix grammar does not need to be reported than when it comes to rewriting text. One avenue could be to disclose the actual prompts that are used to revise the paper. Along these lines, Grammarly has a new feature that allows users to acknowledge the usage of AI and the actual prompts that the users used. In addition, our research raises the question of how journals, conferences, and associations can enforce differences in what should be reported. While the detection tool that we employed was able to detect relatively accurately whether AI was used at all, abstracts that were rewritten by GPT-3.5 were sometimes given a lower chance of being written by AI than the grammar-fixed abstracts. This also opens the question of whether using ChatGPT to fix grammar might inadvertently make more substantial changes than desired. How can researchers be sure that they use AI in the desired way? One solution could be to use ChatGPT to point out grammar errors, but to fix them manually, so that ChatGPT does not actually revise the text. These tools and our perceptions of them will surely evolve, but the aim of this paper is to determine how they are perceived and detected in this moment in time, as it appears to be an inflection point in AI ability and in its use to revise text. 4.1 Limitations and Future Directions In terms of our survey design, the use of a convenience sample may have introduced selection issues that complicate our comparisons by role and English language background. In addition, our convenience sample was largely composed of economists, and because views might differ across fields, it would be valuable to also consider what perceptions look like more generally and to illuminate differences across fields. An alternative approach that allows for an assessment of perceptions across fields is offered by Bringula (2023), who runs a sentiment analysis on papers written about AI use in manuscript preparation and finds that the sentiment in those papers is generally positive. Also, the use of a convenience sample did not lend itself to randomizing on the form of assistance (ChatGPT, RA assistance, etc.). In addition, another limitation of our survey is that we do not dig deeply into the nature of ethical perceptions. Since these perceptions were such an important predictor of reporting preferences, it might be insightful to know why academics feel that using AI tools for manuscript preparation is unethical. For example, is someone harmed by their use – such as other academics, science in general, or the authors whose material is used in training the AI – or is there a deeper moral question at play? One way to tease apart these subtleties would be to have academics evaluate a number of detailed vignettes. It might also be interesting to determine the role of payment in ethical considerations, as ChatGPT, RAs, and proofreaders sometimes require payment and sometimes do not. In terms of our detection design, we just considered published papers, at a top journal, and for the field of management. To understand whether these results hold more generally, it would be necessary to look at papers published in other fields, perhaps using a service like Scopus, and to look at working papers, perhaps sourced from SSRN or arXiv. In addition, it might be valuable to consider full papers instead of just abstracts, or as a middle case between abstracts and full papers, introductions might also be useful to examine. Additionally, our results are limited to one AI detection service, so we do not know if they extend to other services, such as GPTZero. Also, it might be of interest to see if other AI-based revision services, such as Grammarly, are flagged by AI detectors too. Along these lines, it might be insightful to consider other forms of writing assistance that might be taken besides fixing grammar and rewriting text, or specific forms of rewriting text. One important dimension could be whether use of chat-based and completion-based AI tools lead to different detection rates. Finally, and related to the last point, it would be valuable to consider a range of different prompts, especially given the sensitivity that we found to relatively small changes in prompt language. One systematic way to choose the prompts could be to hold focus groups of researchers or ChatGPT users or by having a way for researchers to vote on the prompts that are tested. Another dimension of investigation could be to see if our results are sensitive to other important features of the GPT API inputs, such as increasing the model to GPT-4, increasing the temperature to increase the hallucination rate, or by using other system prompts. Given the black box nature of LLMs, a robust empirical analysis is needed to inform policymakers at associations, journals, and conferences of the link between how AI is used and how it is flagged by detection software. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Authors: Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion References References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals 4 Discussion Our findings are a starting point for future research and suggest that several issues need to be carefully considered by the academic community. For instance, the community needs to decide which forms of assistance should be reported, whether it be ChatGPT or some other source, such as RA help or help from another AI tool. Additionally, it needs to decide which types of assistance to be reported, be it fixing grammar or something more extensive. We found more consensus that using ChatGPT to fix grammar does not need to be reported than when it comes to rewriting text. One avenue could be to disclose the actual prompts that are used to revise the paper. Along these lines, Grammarly has a new feature that allows users to acknowledge the usage of AI and the actual prompts that the users used. In addition, our research raises the question of how journals, conferences, and associations can enforce differences in what should be reported. While the detection tool that we employed was able to detect relatively accurately whether AI was used at all, abstracts that were rewritten by GPT-3.5 were sometimes given a lower chance of being written by AI than the grammar-fixed abstracts. This also opens the question of whether using ChatGPT to fix grammar might inadvertently make more substantial changes than desired. How can researchers be sure that they use AI in the desired way? One solution could be to use ChatGPT to point out grammar errors, but to fix them manually, so that ChatGPT does not actually revise the text. These tools and our perceptions of them will surely evolve, but the aim of this paper is to determine how they are perceived and detected in this moment in time, as it appears to be an inflection point in AI ability and in its use to revise text. 4.1 Limitations and Future Directions In terms of our survey design, the use of a convenience sample may have introduced selection issues that complicate our comparisons by role and English language background. In addition, our convenience sample was largely composed of economists, and because views might differ across fields, it would be valuable to also consider what perceptions look like more generally and to illuminate differences across fields. An alternative approach that allows for an assessment of perceptions across fields is offered by Bringula (2023), who runs a sentiment analysis on papers written about AI use in manuscript preparation and finds that the sentiment in those papers is generally positive. Also, the use of a convenience sample did not lend itself to randomizing on the form of assistance (ChatGPT, RA assistance, etc.). In addition, another limitation of our survey is that we do not dig deeply into the nature of ethical perceptions. Since these perceptions were such an important predictor of reporting preferences, it might be insightful to know why academics feel that using AI tools for manuscript preparation is unethical. For example, is someone harmed by their use – such as other academics, science in general, or the authors whose material is used in training the AI – or is there a deeper moral question at play? One way to tease apart these subtleties would be to have academics evaluate a number of detailed vignettes. It might also be interesting to determine the role of payment in ethical considerations, as ChatGPT, RAs, and proofreaders sometimes require payment and sometimes do not. In terms of our detection design, we just considered published papers, at a top journal, and for the field of management. To understand whether these results hold more generally, it would be necessary to look at papers published in other fields, perhaps using a service like Scopus, and to look at working papers, perhaps sourced from SSRN or arXiv. In addition, it might be valuable to consider full papers instead of just abstracts, or as a middle case between abstracts and full papers, introductions might also be useful to examine. Additionally, our results are limited to one AI detection service, so we do not know if they extend to other services, such as GPTZero. Also, it might be of interest to see if other AI-based revision services, such as Grammarly, are flagged by AI detectors too. Along these lines, it might be insightful to consider other forms of writing assistance that might be taken besides fixing grammar and rewriting text, or specific forms of rewriting text. One important dimension could be whether use of chat-based and completion-based AI tools lead to different detection rates. Finally, and related to the last point, it would be valuable to consider a range of different prompts, especially given the sensitivity that we found to relatively small changes in prompt language. One systematic way to choose the prompts could be to hold focus groups of researchers or ChatGPT users or by having a way for researchers to vote on the prompts that are tested. Another dimension of investigation could be to see if our results are sensitive to other important features of the GPT API inputs, such as increasing the model to GPT-4, increasing the temperature to increase the hallucination rate, or by using other system prompts. Given the black box nature of LLMs, a robust empirical analysis is needed to inform policymakers at associations, journals, and conferences of the link between how AI is used and how it is flagged by detection software. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals: Discussion

Authors:
(1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: );
(2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals References Agrawal, Ajay, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb (2019). The economics of artificial intelligence: an agenda. University of Chicago Press. Akram, Arslan (2023). “An Empirical Study of AI Generated Text Detection Tools”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01423. Altmäe, Signe, Alberto Sola-Leyva, and Andres Salumets (2023). “Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?” Reproductive BioMedicine Online Athey, Susan and Guido W Imbens (2019). “Machine learning methods that economists should know about”. Annual Review of Economics 11, pp. 685–725. Beck, J Thaddeus et al. (2020). “Artificial intelligence tool for optimizing eligibility screening for clinical trials in a large community cancer center”. JCO clinical cancer informatics 4, pp. 50–59. Björkegren, Daniel, Joshua E. Blumenstock, and Samsun Knight (2022). (Machine) Learning What Policies Value. arXiv: 2206.00727 [econ.GN]. Bom, Hee-Seung Henry (2023). “Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of ChatGPT in Academic Writing: a Roundtable Discussion”. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, pp. 1– 3. Bommasani, Rishi et al. (2021). “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258. Bringula, Rex (2023). “What do academics have to say about ChatGPT? A text mining analytics on the discussions regarding ChatGPT on research writing”. AI and Ethics, pp. 1–13. Capra, C. Monica, Matthew Gomies, and Shanshan Zhang (2023). “The Sound of Cooperation and Deception in High Stakes Interactions”. Charness, Gary, Brian Jabarian, and John A List (2023). Generation next: Experimentation with ai. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. Chien, Chen-Fu et al. (2020). Artificial intelligence in manufacturing and logistics systems: algorithms, applications, and case studies. Cowen, Tyler and Alexander T Tabarrok (2023). “How to learn and teach economics with large language models, including GPT”. Including GPT (March 17, 2023). Daun, Marian and Jennifer Brings (2023). “How ChatGPT will change software engineering education”. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, pp. 110–116. Deza, Arturo, Amit Surana, and Miguel P Eckstein (2019). “Assessment of faster r-cnn in manmachine collaborative search”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3185–3194. Dietvorst, Berkeley J, Joseph P Simmons, and Cade Massey (2015). “Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144.1, p. 114. Dranove, David and Ginger Zhe Jin (2010). “Quality disclosure and certification: Theory and practice”. Journal of Economic Literature 48.4, pp. 935–63. Farrell, Max H, Tengyuan Liang, and Sanjog Misra (2020). “Deep learning for individual heterogeneity: An automatic inference framework”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14694. Fitria, Tira Nur (2021). “Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for writing English”. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching 5.1, pp. 65–78. Franchi, Matt et al. (2023). “Detecting disparities in police deployments using dashcam data”. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 534–544. Fudenberg, Drew and Annie Liang (2019). “Predicting and understanding initial play”. American Economic Review 109.12, pp. 4112–4141 Fyfe, Paul (2023). “How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing”. AI & SOCIETY 38.4, pp. 1395–1405. Gajos, Krzysztof Z and Lena Mamykina (2022). “Do people engage cognitively with AI? Impact of AI assistance on incidental learning”. In: 27th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, pp. 794–806. Hill-Yardin, Elisa L et al. (2023). “A Chat (GPT) about the future of scientific publishing”. Brain Behav Immun 110, pp. 152–154. Horton, John J (2023). Large language models as simulated economic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus? Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. Ibrahim, Hazem et al. (2023). “Rethinking Homework in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”. IEEE Intelligent Systems 38.2, pp. 24–27. Jin, Ginger Zhe, Michael Luca, and Daniel Martin (2015). Is no news (perceived as) bad news? An experimental investigation of information disclosure. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. Jungherr, Andreas (2023). “Using ChatGPT and Other Large Language Model (LLM) Applications for Academic Paper Assignments”. Korinek, Anton (2023). “Language models and cognitive automation for economic research” Lambrecht, Anja and Catherine Tucker (2019). “Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads”. Management science 65.7, pp. 2966–2981. Malik, Agung Rinaldy et al. (2023). “Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student’s Perspective”. International Journal of Educational Research Open 5, p. 100296. Mullainathan, Sendhil and Jann Spiess (2017). “Machine learning: an applied econometric approach”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31.2, pp. 87–106. Obermeyer, Ziad et al. (2019). “Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations”. Science 366.6464, pp. 447–453. Pallathadka, Harikumar et al. (2023). “Applications of artificial intelligence in business management, e-commerce and finance”. Materials Today: Proceedings 80, pp. 2610–2613. Rambachan, Ashesh et al. (2021). “Identifying prediction mistakes in observational data”. Harvard University. Ray, Partha Pratim (2023). “ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope”. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems. Rolf, Esther et al. (2020). Balancing Competing Objectives with Noisy Data: Score-Based Classifiers for Welfare-Aware Machine Learning. arXiv: 2003.06740 [cs.LG]. Salah, Mohammed, Hussam Al Halbusi, and Fadi Abdelfattah (2023). “May the force of text data analysis be with you: Unleashing the power of generative AI for social psychology research”. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, p. 100006 Schmohl, Tobias et al. (2020). “How Artificial Intelligence can improve the Academic Writing of Students”. In: Conference Proceedings. The Future of Education 2020. Shahriar, Sakib and Kadhim Hayawi (2023). “Let’s have a chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13817. Singh, Harjit and Avneet Singh (2023). “ChatGPT: Systematic Review, Applications, and Agenda for Multidisciplinary Research”. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies 21.2, pp. 193– 212. Steyvers, Mark et al. (2022). “Bayesian modeling of human–AI complementarity”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.11, e2111547119. Sundar, S Shyam and Eun-Ju Lee (2022). “Rethinking communication in the era of artificial intelligence”. Human Communication Research 48.3, pp. 379–385. Tejeda, Heliodoro et al. (2022). “AI-assisted decision-making: A cognitive modeling approach to infer latent reliance strategies”. Computational Brain & Behavior 5.4, pp. 491–508. Thorp, H Holden (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Wang, Xinru, Chen Liang, and Ming Yin (2023). “The Effects of AI Biases and Explanations on Human Decision Fairness: A Case Study of Bidding in Rental Housing Markets”. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, Edith Elkind (Ed.). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, pp. 3076– 3084 Yang, Nanyin, Marco Palma, and Andreas Drichoutis (2023). “How Does Humanizing Virtual Assistants Affect the Propensity to Follow Their Advice?” Yang, Nanyin, Marco A Palma, and Andreas C Drichoutis (2023). “How Does Humanizing Virtual Assistants Affect the Propensity to Follow Their Advice?” Zuiderwijk, Anneke, Yu-Che Chen, and Fadi Salem (2021). “Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda”. Government Information Quarterly 38.3, p. 101577. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Authors: Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion References References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals References Agrawal, Ajay, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb (2019). The economics of artificial intelligence: an agenda. University of Chicago Press. Akram, Arslan (2023). “An Empirical Study of AI Generated Text Detection Tools”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01423. Altmäe, Signe, Alberto Sola-Leyva, and Andres Salumets (2023). “Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?” Reproductive BioMedicine Online Athey, Susan and Guido W Imbens (2019). “Machine learning methods that economists should know about”. Annual Review of Economics 11, pp. 685–725. Beck, J Thaddeus et al. (2020). “Artificial intelligence tool for optimizing eligibility screening for clinical trials in a large community cancer center”. JCO clinical cancer informatics 4, pp. 50–59. Björkegren, Daniel, Joshua E. Blumenstock, and Samsun Knight (2022). (Machine) Learning What Policies Value. arXiv: 2206.00727 [econ.GN]. Bom, Hee-Seung Henry (2023). “Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of ChatGPT in Academic Writing: a Roundtable Discussion”. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, pp. 1– 3. Bommasani, Rishi et al. (2021). “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258. Bringula, Rex (2023). “What do academics have to say about ChatGPT? A text mining analytics on the discussions regarding ChatGPT on research writing”. AI and Ethics, pp. 1–13. Capra, C. Monica, Matthew Gomies, and Shanshan Zhang (2023). “The Sound of Cooperation and Deception in High Stakes Interactions”. Charness, Gary, Brian Jabarian, and John A List (2023). Generation next: Experimentation with ai. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. Chien, Chen-Fu et al. (2020). Artificial intelligence in manufacturing and logistics systems: algorithms, applications, and case studies. Cowen, Tyler and Alexander T Tabarrok (2023). “How to learn and teach economics with large language models, including GPT”. Including GPT (March 17, 2023). Daun, Marian and Jennifer Brings (2023). “How ChatGPT will change software engineering education”. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, pp. 110–116. Deza, Arturo, Amit Surana, and Miguel P Eckstein (2019). “Assessment of faster r-cnn in manmachine collaborative search”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3185–3194. Dietvorst, Berkeley J, Joseph P Simmons, and Cade Massey (2015). “Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144.1, p. 114. Dranove, David and Ginger Zhe Jin (2010). “Quality disclosure and certification: Theory and practice”. Journal of Economic Literature 48.4, pp. 935–63. Farrell, Max H, Tengyuan Liang, and Sanjog Misra (2020). “Deep learning for individual heterogeneity: An automatic inference framework”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14694. Fitria, Tira Nur (2021). “Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for writing English”. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching 5.1, pp. 65–78. Franchi, Matt et al. (2023). “Detecting disparities in police deployments using dashcam data”. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 534–544. Fudenberg, Drew and Annie Liang (2019). “Predicting and understanding initial play”. American Economic Review 109.12, pp. 4112–4141 Fyfe, Paul (2023). “How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing”. AI & SOCIETY 38.4, pp. 1395–1405. Gajos, Krzysztof Z and Lena Mamykina (2022). “Do people engage cognitively with AI? Impact of AI assistance on incidental learning”. In: 27th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, pp. 794–806. Hill-Yardin, Elisa L et al. (2023). “A Chat (GPT) about the future of scientific publishing”. Brain Behav Immun 110, pp. 152–154. Horton, John J (2023). Large language models as simulated economic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus? Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. Ibrahim, Hazem et al. (2023). “Rethinking Homework in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”. IEEE Intelligent Systems 38.2, pp. 24–27. Jin, Ginger Zhe, Michael Luca, and Daniel Martin (2015). Is no news (perceived as) bad news? An experimental investigation of information disclosure. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. Jungherr, Andreas (2023). “Using ChatGPT and Other Large Language Model (LLM) Applications for Academic Paper Assignments”. Korinek, Anton (2023). “Language models and cognitive automation for economic research” Lambrecht, Anja and Catherine Tucker (2019). “Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads”. Management science 65.7, pp. 2966–2981. Malik, Agung Rinaldy et al. (2023). “Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student’s Perspective”. International Journal of Educational Research Open 5, p. 100296. Mullainathan, Sendhil and Jann Spiess (2017). “Machine learning: an applied econometric approach”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31.2, pp. 87–106. Obermeyer, Ziad et al. (2019). “Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations”. Science 366.6464, pp. 447–453. Pallathadka, Harikumar et al. (2023). “Applications of artificial intelligence in business management, e-commerce and finance”. Materials Today: Proceedings 80, pp. 2610–2613. Rambachan, Ashesh et al. (2021). “Identifying prediction mistakes in observational data”. Harvard University. Ray, Partha Pratim (2023). “ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope”. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems. Rolf, Esther et al. (2020). Balancing Competing Objectives with Noisy Data: Score-Based Classifiers for Welfare-Aware Machine Learning. arXiv: 2003.06740 [cs.LG]. Salah, Mohammed, Hussam Al Halbusi, and Fadi Abdelfattah (2023). “May the force of text data analysis be with you: Unleashing the power of generative AI for social psychology research”. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, p. 100006 Schmohl, Tobias et al. (2020). “How Artificial Intelligence can improve the Academic Writing of Students”. In: Conference Proceedings. The Future of Education 2020. Shahriar, Sakib and Kadhim Hayawi (2023). “Let’s have a chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13817. Singh, Harjit and Avneet Singh (2023). “ChatGPT: Systematic Review, Applications, and Agenda for Multidisciplinary Research”. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies 21.2, pp. 193– 212. Steyvers, Mark et al. (2022). “Bayesian modeling of human–AI complementarity”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.11, e2111547119. Sundar, S Shyam and Eun-Ju Lee (2022). “Rethinking communication in the era of artificial intelligence”. Human Communication Research 48.3, pp. 379–385. Tejeda, Heliodoro et al. (2022). “AI-assisted decision-making: A cognitive modeling approach to infer latent reliance strategies”. Computational Brain & Behavior 5.4, pp. 491–508. Thorp, H Holden (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Wang, Xinru, Chen Liang, and Ming Yin (2023). “The Effects of AI Biases and Explanations on Human Decision Fairness: A Case Study of Bidding in Rental Housing Markets”. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, Edith Elkind (Ed.). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, pp. 3076– 3084 Yang, Nanyin, Marco Palma, and Andreas Drichoutis (2023). “How Does Humanizing Virtual Assistants Affect the Propensity to Follow Their Advice?” Yang, Nanyin, Marco A Palma, and Andreas C Drichoutis (2023). “How Does Humanizing Virtual Assistants Affect the Propensity to Follow Their Advice?” Zuiderwijk, Anneke, Yu-Che Chen, and Fadi Salem (2021). “Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda”. Government Information Quarterly 38.3, p. 101577. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals: References

Authors:
(1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: );
(2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals 2 Methods In order to answer our main research questions, we split our design into two parts. The first part was a survey of the academic community that captured academics’ views on reporting AI use in manuscript preparation. The second part was to test an AI detector’s reaction to AI use in manuscript preparation. Our primary focus was on using AI to fix grammar and rewrite text, which we consider to be important intermediate cases between not using AI at all and using AI to do all of the writing based on limited inputs (e.g., only a title and/or a set of results). We asked academics for their perceptions about these two kinds of AI usage in manuscript preparation and investigated how the detector responded to these different kinds of usage. All of this will be explained in more detail in the following subsections. 2.1 Survey Design Beginning August 22nd 2023 and running until September 20th 2023, we conducted a brief unpaid survey about perceptions of AI use in manuscript preparation. We sent this survey to a convenience sample of academics; specifically, we sent it to three listservs: the UCSB Economic Department listserv (connecting graduate students, professors, and postdocs at the University of California, Santa Barbara); the Economics Science Association (ESA) announcement listserv (ESA is the leading organization for experimental economics); and the Decision Theory (DT) Forum listserv (the DT Forum is a listserv of academics working on decision theory that is run by Itzhak Gilboa). We sent the survey with a few days delay between each group, which allows for a rough measure of the respondents from each source. We had a total of 271 respondents complete the survey: 38 from UCSB, 199 from UCSB and the ESA community, and 34 from UCSB, the ESA community, and the DT Forum (this number does not include 20 individuals who did not specify an academic role). The median time to answer the survey was 1.21 minutes, and survey respondents provided informed consent (as shown in Appendix A). In this survey, we focused on two main aspects related to perceptions of AI use in manuscript preparation. The first aspect is whether authors should acknowledge using ChatGPT to fix grammar or to rewrite text. We asked this over two separate questions, as shown in Figure 10 in Appendix A. These two uses of ChatGPT reflect to many of the use cases of LLMs suggested in articles, websites, and online courses. The second aspect is whether using ChatGPT to modify an academic manuscript is unethical. Again, we split this into two questions – one for grammar and one for rewrite – to allow researchers to address whether ethics also depends on usage. Because we suspected that there might be differences in these perceptions and an academic’s role and language background, we asked respondents if they were a native speaker of English and their current role (postdoc, student, untenured professor, tenured professor, and/or other). Of the 271 respondents who completed our survey, 83 reported being a native English speaker, and we categorized 67 respondents as students, 32 as postdocs, 59 as untenured professors, and 113 as tenured professors. If someone reported multiple roles, we took the “highest” report, ranked in this order. In addition to these questions, we added follow-up questions on a second page of the survey about whether authors should acknowledge other writing services and tools such as Word, Grammarly, proofreading, and the work of research assistants (see Figure 11 in Appendix A). We asked this question only after the ChatGPT questions and on a new page because our main focus was the perception of AI (e.g., ChatGPT) in academic writing, and because we wanted to avoid these followup questions influencing the answers given about ChatGPT. In addition, we did not randomize the order between ChatGPT and other services because the convenience sample already knew this was a survey about ChatGPT, so that would have been in their mind already when completing the survey. However, by asking questions about ChatGPT first, we might have reduced differences in reported perceptions with other writing services, as people might feel the need to report consistently for a given use. To make the questions about other sources comparable the questions about ChatGPT, we used the same question format and split the comparison into two groups: fixing grammar and rewriting text. The tools we included for fixing grammar included Word, Grammarly, and RA help. Importantly, we wrote explicitly in the question that these tools were to be used for fixing grammar. For rewriting text, we used proofreading and RA help. Once more, we explicitly asked whether authors should acknowledge using these tools and services for rewriting text for an academic journal. 2.2 Detection Design Next, we tested how an AI detector would react to using ChatGPT to fix grammar in academic text and to rewrite academic text. We first collected titles and abstracts from 2,716 papers published in the journal Management Science from January 2013 to September 2023. We excluded articles with the following words in their titles, as they did not appear to be original articles: “Erratum,” “Comment on,” “Management Science,” “Reviewers and Guest Associate Editors,” and “Reviewers and Guest Editors.” We intentionally included papers that were published before the launch of ChatGPT in November 30, 2022 in order to have source text that was plausibly unimpacted by LLM use. We revised these abstracts using a variety of prompts, as seen in Table 1 below. Rather than selecting the prompts ourselves, we wanted to use an external source. We decided to use prompts from the online GitHub page ChatGPT Prompts for Academic Writing, which advises researchers on how to use ChatGPT. We chose this source because it was the first link returned from a Google search of “ChatGPT Prompts for Academic Writing.” Our baselines prompts were “Grammar 1” and “Rewrite 1,” and for robustness we also considered two functionally related prompts, “Grammar 2” and “Rewrite 2.” We added a restriction at the end of these prompts to “Give a version in one paragraph based on this paragraph” in order to meet the requirement that the abstract be only one paragraph in length. To consider the robustness of our results to this additional language, we also ran versions of our baseline prompts that did not include it: “Grammar 1b” and “Rewrite 1b.” It has been shown that there are ways to fool certain detectors, such as by adding strange characters to the text, and this is a constantly evolving game of cat-and-mouse as detectors evolve. Although this could be of interest for researchers, we do not study this particular phenomenon. Instead, it is our goal to see whether an academic who uses ChatGPT for widely-proposed purposes – without further edits or detection avoidance strategies – would have their writing be flagged as AI generated. To revise these abstracts at scale, we leveraged the GPT API with settings that would produce output that closely mirrors the output of a researcher using ChatGPT to revise academic writing. The specific model we used was gpt-3.5-turbo-0613 (GPT-3.5 Turbo released in June 13 2023), and we kept the default settings for temperature, top p, frequency penalty, and presence penalty. We also used the default system prompt, “You are a helpful assistant,” which is a background prompt that can be changed in the API but not in ChatGPT itself. We did a fresh call each time we used a prompt to avoid learning and history effects. Finally, we used a leading paid service (Originality.ai) to see how AI detection algorithms might react to this use of LLMs. We first evaluated the original Management Science abstracts, and then the abstracts revised by GPT-3.5 based on all of the prompts. Originality.ai provides an “AI score,” which is a value between 0% and 100% that is interpreted as the likelihood that AI wrote the text being evaluated. A high score means a high likelihood that AI generated the text. Specifically, the company states: “If an article has an AI score of 5%... there is a 95% chance that the article was human-generated (NOT that 5% of the article is AI generated).” Akram (2023) studied a number of popular detection tools and found that Originality.ai had the highest accuracy rate (97%). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Authors: Authors: (1) Nir Chemaya, University of California, Santa Barbara and (e-mail: ); (2) Daniel Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and (e-mail: ). Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion References References Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals Appendix for Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals 2 Methods In order to answer our main research questions, we split our design into two parts. The first part was a survey of the academic community that captured academics’ views on reporting AI use in manuscript preparation. The second part was to test an AI detector’s reaction to AI use in manuscript preparation. Our primary focus was on using AI to fix grammar and rewrite text, which we consider to be important intermediate cases between not using AI at all and using AI to do all of the writing based on limited inputs (e.g., only a title and/or a set of results). We asked academics for their perceptions about these two kinds of AI usage in manuscript preparation and investigated how the detector responded to these different kinds of usage. All of this will be explained in more detail in the following subsections. 2.1 Survey Design Beginning August 22nd 2023 and running until September 20th 2023, we conducted a brief unpaid survey about perceptions of AI use in manuscript preparation. We sent this survey to a convenience sample of academics; specifically, we sent it to three listservs: the UCSB Economic Department listserv (connecting graduate students, professors, and postdocs at the University of California, Santa Barbara); the Economics Science Association (ESA) announcement listserv (ESA is the leading organization for experimental economics); and the Decision Theory (DT) Forum listserv (the DT Forum is a listserv of academics working on decision theory that is run by Itzhak Gilboa). We sent the survey with a few days delay between each group, which allows for a rough measure of the respondents from each source. We had a total of 271 respondents complete the survey: 38 from UCSB, 199 from UCSB and the ESA community, and 34 from UCSB, the ESA community, and the DT Forum (this number does not include 20 individuals who did not specify an academic role). The median time to answer the survey was 1.21 minutes, and survey respondents provided informed consent (as shown in Appendix A). In this survey, we focused on two main aspects related to perceptions of AI use in manuscript preparation. The first aspect is whether authors should acknowledge using ChatGPT to fix grammar or to rewrite text. We asked this over two separate questions, as shown in Figure 10 in Appendix A. These two uses of ChatGPT reflect to many of the use cases of LLMs suggested in articles, websites, and online courses. The second aspect is whether using ChatGPT to modify an academic manuscript is unethical. Again, we split this into two questions – one for grammar and one for rewrite – to allow researchers to address whether ethics also depends on usage. Because we suspected that there might be differences in these perceptions and an academic’s role and language background, we asked respondents if they were a native speaker of English and their current role (postdoc, student, untenured professor, tenured professor, and/or other). Of the 271 respondents who completed our survey, 83 reported being a native English speaker, and we categorized 67 respondents as students, 32 as postdocs, 59 as untenured professors, and 113 as tenured professors. If someone reported multiple roles, we took the “highest” report, ranked in this order. In addition to these questions, we added follow-up questions on a second page of the survey about whether authors should acknowledge other writing services and tools such as Word, Grammarly, proofreading, and the work of research assistants (see Figure 11 in Appendix A). We asked this question only after the ChatGPT questions and on a new page because our main focus was the perception of AI (e.g., ChatGPT) in academic writing, and because we wanted to avoid these followup questions influencing the answers given about ChatGPT. In addition, we did not randomize the order between ChatGPT and other services because the convenience sample already knew this was a survey about ChatGPT, so that would have been in their mind already when completing the survey. However, by asking questions about ChatGPT first, we might have reduced differences in reported perceptions with other writing services, as people might feel the need to report consistently for a given use. To make the questions about other sources comparable the questions about ChatGPT, we used the same question format and split the comparison into two groups: fixing grammar and rewriting text. The tools we included for fixing grammar included Word, Grammarly, and RA help. Importantly, we wrote explicitly in the question that these tools were to be used for fixing grammar. For rewriting text, we used proofreading and RA help. Once more, we explicitly asked whether authors should acknowledge using these tools and services for rewriting text for an academic journal. 2.2 Detection Design Next, we tested how an AI detector would react to using ChatGPT to fix grammar in academic text and to rewrite academic text. We first collected titles and abstracts from 2,716 papers published in the journal Management Science from January 2013 to September 2023. We excluded articles with the following words in their titles, as they did not appear to be original articles: “Erratum,” “Comment on,” “Management Science,” “Reviewers and Guest Associate Editors,” and “Reviewers and Guest Editors.” We intentionally included papers that were published before the launch of ChatGPT in November 30, 2022 in order to have source text that was plausibly unimpacted by LLM use. We revised these abstracts using a variety of prompts, as seen in Table 1 below. Rather than selecting the prompts ourselves, we wanted to use an external source. We decided to use prompts from the online GitHub page ChatGPT Prompts for Academic Writing, which advises researchers on how to use ChatGPT. We chose this source because it was the first link returned from a Google search of “ChatGPT Prompts for Academic Writing.” Our baselines prompts were “Grammar 1” and “Rewrite 1,” and for robustness we also considered two functionally related prompts, “Grammar 2” and “Rewrite 2.” We added a restriction at the end of these prompts to “Give a version in one paragraph based on this paragraph” in order to meet the requirement that the abstract be only one paragraph in length. To consider the robustness of our results to this additional language, we also ran versions of our baseline prompts that did not include it: “Grammar 1b” and “Rewrite 1b.” It has been shown that there are ways to fool certain detectors, such as by adding strange characters to the text, and this is a constantly evolving game of cat-and-mouse as detectors evolve. Although this could be of interest for researchers, we do not study this particular phenomenon. Instead, it is our goal to see whether an academic who uses ChatGPT for widely-proposed purposes – without further edits or detection avoidance strategies – would have their writing be flagged as AI generated. To revise these abstracts at scale, we leveraged the GPT API with settings that would produce output that closely mirrors the output of a researcher using ChatGPT to revise academic writing. The specific model we used was gpt-3.5-turbo-0613 (GPT-3.5 Turbo released in June 13 2023), and we kept the default settings for temperature, top p, frequency penalty, and presence penalty. We also used the default system prompt, “You are a helpful assistant,” which is a background prompt that can be changed in the API but not in ChatGPT itself. We did a fresh call each time we used a prompt to avoid learning and history effects. Finally, we used a leading paid service (Originality.ai) to see how AI detection algorithms might react to this use of LLMs. We first evaluated the original Management Science abstracts, and then the abstracts revised by GPT-3.5 based on all of the prompts. Originality.ai provides an “AI score,” which is a value between 0% and 100% that is interpreted as the likelihood that AI wrote the text being evaluated. A high score means a high likelihood that AI generated the text. Specifically, the company states: “If an article has an AI score of 5%... there is a 95% chance that the article was human-generated (NOT that 5% of the article is AI generated).” Akram (2023) studied a number of popular detection tools and found that Originality.ai had the highest accuracy rate (97%). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals: Methods

Closing the Skills Gap: Addressing the Surge in Demand for Digital Marketing Experts

How to Start a Career in Product Marketing: 10 Expert Tips (2024)

1. What is your company in 2–5 words? AI Workforce Productivity Analytics 2. Why is now the time for your company to exist? AI allows workforce algorithmic scaling at a cost that is finally competitive and reasonable for businesses. 3. What do you love about your team, and why are you the ones to solve this problem? Our company blends experienced professionals with young and hungry tech talent. Innovative Stanford-educated engineers work alongside professors from Stanford, Wharton, and Kellogg to find the most effective ways to improve employee retention at companies. 4. If you weren’t building your startup, what would you be doing? I would be building another startup. 5. At the moment, how do you measure success? What are your metrics? I measure our success by the amount of workforce retention we create, the dollars FORE saves businesses and the productivity we increase. Our clients’ success is our success. 6. In a few sentences, what do you offer to whom? FORE Enterprise offers B2B workforce analytics to operation departments and mergers and acquisitions departments. We use analytics from advanced AI models to identify key trends and issues that lead to employee turnover and then provide advice from an expert advisory council on how to intervene. We’ve developed a range of creative intervention strategies that allow our clients to take steps to combat turnover with solutions tailored to their specific companies and employees. FORE also factors predicted employee turnover into company valuations. 7. What’s most exciting about your traction to date? I’m excited about the amount of revenue FORE has affected for clients. We have impacted billion-dollar deals as well as saved millions for our clients in operational workforce costs. 8. Where do you think your growth will be next year? By next year, our product will be able to seamlessly generate analytics based on data from 100,000 publicly available companies within a two-day timespan. 9. Tell us about your first paying customer and revenue expectations over the next year. FORE’s first paying customer was a major American manufacturer, and we helped them significantly decrease the cost associated with turnover, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions for their employees. By the end of this year, we’re targeting a million and a half in revenue and by the end of next year, we hope to be at $10-20 million in revenue. 10. What’s your biggest threat? Corporate ignorance. Most companies don’t understand the true cost of turnover, and even when they do, they often waste millions of dollars on ineffective interventions for employees that don’t help them retain their top talent. Many don’t know how to analyze the effectiveness of their programs and improve them to save money. We hope to show them the importance of this analysis. This startup founder interview is from HackerNoon Founder & CEO David Smooke’s ten questions for startup founders. 1. What is your company in 2–5 words? AI Workforce Productivity Analytics 2. Why is now the time for your company to exist? AI allows workforce algorithmic scaling at a cost that is finally competitive and reasonable for businesses. 3. What do you love about your team, and why are you the ones to solve this problem? Our company blends experienced professionals with young and hungry tech talent. Innovative Stanford-educated engineers work alongside professors from Stanford, Wharton, and Kellogg to find the most effective ways to improve employee retention at companies. 4. If you weren’t building your startup, what would you be doing? I would be building another startup. 5. At the moment, how do you measure success? What are your metrics? I measure our success by the amount of workforce retention we create, the dollars FORE saves businesses and the productivity we increase. Our clients’ success is our success. 6. In a few sentences, what do you offer to whom? FORE Enterprise offers B2B workforce analytics to operation departments and mergers and acquisitions departments. We use analytics from advanced AI models to identify key trends and issues that lead to employee turnover and then provide advice from an expert advisory council on how to intervene. We’ve developed a range of creative intervention strategies that allow our clients to take steps to combat turnover with solutions tailored to their specific companies and employees. FORE also factors predicted employee turnover into company valuations. 7. What’s most exciting about your traction to date? I’m excited about the amount of revenue FORE has affected for clients. We have impacted billion-dollar deals as well as saved millions for our clients in operational workforce costs. 8. Where do you think your growth will be next year? By next year, our product will be able to seamlessly generate analytics based on data from 100,000 publicly available companies within a two-day timespan. 9. Tell us about your first paying customer and revenue expectations over the next year. FORE’s first paying customer was a major American manufacturer, and we helped them significantly decrease the cost associated with turnover, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions for their employees. By the end of this year, we’re targeting a million and a half in revenue and by the end of next year, we hope to be at $10-20 million in revenue. 10. What’s your biggest threat? Corporate ignorance. Most companies don’t understand the true cost of turnover, and even when they do, they often waste millions of dollars on ineffective interventions for employees that don’t help them retain their top talent. Many don’t know how to analyze the effectiveness of their programs and improve them to save money. We hope to show them the importance of this analysis. This startup founder interview is from HackerNoon Founder & CEO David Smooke’s ten questions for startup founders. This startup founder interview is from HackerNoon Founder & CEO David Smooke’s ten questions for startup founders. This startup founder interview is from HackerNoon Founder & CEO David Smooke ’s ten questions for startup founders . HackerNoon Founder & CEO David Smooke ten questions for startup founders

The Tyler Hochman Interview: Building a B2B Workforce Analytics Company

This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv Authors: (1) Md Masud Rana, Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky; (2) Duc Duy Nguyen, Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky & . Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Datasets and Results Methods Conclusion, Data and Software Availability, Competing interests, Acknowledgments & References 4 Conclusion The study of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) and the prediction of mutation-induced binding free energy changes are of great importance in understanding the molecular basis of biological processes. The application of geometric graph theory and atom-level graph coloring techniques provides a powerful framework for analyzing biomolecules and capturing their intricate relationships. By utilizing the concept of geometric subgraphs and constructing multi-scale weighted colored geometric subgraphs (MWCGS), we can effectively represent the structural and functional properties of PPIs. The site-specific MWCGS features allow us to extract meaningful patterns and characteristics, shedding light on the effects of mutations and the underlying molecular interactions. In this work, we developed a mutation-induced binding free energy change predictor, called GGL-PPI, by incorporating site-specific MWCGS features for PPIs and gradient-boosting trees. Our method demonstrates superior performance compared to existing methods. The model was validated on three datasets: AB-Bind S645, SKEMPI 1.0 S1131, and SKEMPI 2.0 S4169 and S8338, showcasing its robustness and effectiveness. Furthermore, GGL-PPI was evaluated on a blind test set, the Ssym dataset. To prevent data leakage between the test and training sets, the model was trained on a homology-reduced balanced training set Q3488. This approach ensures the reliability and fairness of the evaluation process. GGL-PPI exhibits the most unbiased and superior performance in predicting binding free energy changes for both direct and reverse mutations, outperforming other existing methods, particularly for reverse mutations. Overall, the results highlight the potential of the GGL-PPI approach in accurately predicting mutation-induced binding free energy changes in protein-protein interactions, providing valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying protein-protein interactions and facilitating drug design and discovery efforts. 5 Data and Software Availability The source code is available at Github: //github.com/NguyenLabUKY/GGL-Mutation. 6 Competing interests No competing interest is declared. 7 Acknowledgments This work is supported in part by funds from the National Science Foundation (NSF: # 2053284, # 2151802, and # 2245903), and the University of Kentucky Startup Fund. References [1] Dana Chuderland and Rony Seger. Protein-protein interactions in the regulation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase. Mol. Biotechnol., 29:57–74, 2005. [2] Harry Jubb, Tom L Blundell, and David B Ascher. Flexibility and small pockets at protein–protein interfaces: new insights into druggability. Prog. Biophys. Mol., 119(1):2–9, 2015. [3] Mileidy W Gonzalez and Maricel G Kann. Chapter 4: Protein interactions and disease. PLoS Comput. Biol., 8(12):e1002819, 2012. [4] Cunliang Geng, Li C Xue, Jorge Roel-Touris, and Alexandre MJJ Bonvin. Finding the δδg spot: are predictors of binding affinity changes upon mutations in protein–protein interactions ready for it? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci., 9(5):e1410, 2019. [5] Rocco Moretti, Sarel J Fleishman, Rudi Agius, Mieczyslaw Torchala, Paul A Bates, Panagiotis L Kastritis, Joao PGLM Rodrigues, Mika¨el Trellet, Alexandre MJJ Bonvin, Meng Cui, et al. Community-wide evaluation of methods for predicting the effect of mutations on protein–protein interactions. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet., 81(11):1980–1987, 2013. [6] Jeffrey R Brender and Yang Zhang. Predicting the effect of mutations on protein-protein binding interactions through structure-based interface profiles. PLoS Comput. Biol., 11(10):e1004494, 2015. [7] Ning Zhang, Yuting Chen, Haoyu Lu, Feiyang Zhao, Roberto Vera Alvarez, Alexander Goncearenco, Anna R Panchenko, and Minghui Li. Mutabind2: predicting the impacts of single and multiple mutations on protein-protein interactions. Iscience, 23(3):100939, 2020. [8] Carlos HM Rodrigues, Yoochan Myung, Douglas EV Pires, and David B Ascher. mcsm-ppi2: predicting the effects of mutations on protein–protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res., 47(W1):W338–W344, 2019. [9] Minghui Li, Marharyta Petukh, Emil Alexov, and Anna R Panchenko. Predicting the impact of missense mutations on protein–protein binding affinity. J. Chem. Theory Comput., 10(4):1770–1780, 2014. [10] Hafumi Nishi, Manoj Tyagi, Shaolei Teng, Benjamin A Shoemaker, Kosuke Hashimoto, Emil Alexov, Stefan Wuchty, and Anna R Panchenko. Cancer missense mutations alter binding properties of proteins and their interaction networks. PloS one, 8(6):e66273, 2013. [11] Mu Gao, Hongyi Zhou, and Jeffrey Skolnick. Insights into disease-associated mutations in the human proteome through protein structural analysis. Structure, 23(7):1362–1369, 2015. [12] Alessia David, Rozami Razali, Mark N Wass, and Michael JE Sternberg. Protein–protein interaction sites are hot spots for disease-associated nonsynonymous snps. Hum. Mutat., 33(2):359–363, 2012. [13] H Billur Engin, Jason F Kreisberg, and Hannah Carter. Structure-based analysis reveals cancer missense mutations target protein interaction interfaces. PLoS One, 11(4):e0152929, 2016. [14] Amelie Stein, Douglas M Fowler, Rasmus Hartmann-Petersen, and Kresten Lindorff-Larsen. Biophysical and mechanistic models for disease-causing protein variants. Trends Biochem. Sci., 44(7):575–588, 2019. [15] Stephanie Portelli, Jody E Phelan, David B Ascher, Taane G Clark, and Nicholas Furnham. Understanding molecular consequences of putative drug resistant mutations in mycobacterium tuberculosis. Sci. Rep., 8(1):1–12, 2018. [16] Sundeep Chaitanya Vedithi, Sony Malhotra, Madhusmita Das, Sheela Daniel, Nanda Kishore, Anuja George, Shantha Arumugam, Lakshmi Rajan, Mannam Ebenezer, David B Ascher, et al. Structural implications of mutations conferring rifampin resistance in mycobacterium leprae. Sci. Rep., 8(1):5016, 2018. [17] Vytautas Gapsys, Servaas Michielssens, Daniel Seeliger, and Bert L de Groot. Accurate and rigorous prediction of the changes in protein free energies in a large-scale mutation scan. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 55(26):7364–7368, 2016. [18] Elizabeth H Kellogg, Andrew Leaver-Fay, and David Baker. Role of conformational sampling in computing mutationinduced changes in protein structure and stability. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 79(3):830–838, 2011. [19] Brian J Bender, Alberto Cisneros III, Amanda M Duran, Jessica A Finn, Darwin Fu, Alyssa D Lokits, Benjamin K Mueller, Amandeep K Sangha, Marion F Sauer, Alexander M Sevy, et al. Protocols for molecular modeling with rosetta3 and rosettascripts. Biochemistry, 55(34):4748–4763, 2016. [20] Kurt S Thorn and Andrew A Bogan. Asedb: a database of alanine mutations and their effects on the free energy of binding in protein interactions. Bioinformatics, 17(3):284–285, 2001. [21] MD Shaji Kumar and M Michael Gromiha. Pint: protein–protein interactions thermodynamic database. Nucleic Acids Res., 34(suppl 1):D195–D198, 2006. [22] MD Shaji Kumar, K Abdulla Bava, M Michael Gromiha, Ponraj Prabakaran, Koji Kitajima, Hatsuho Uedaira, and Akinori Sarai. Protherm and pronit: thermodynamic databases for proteins and protein–nucleic acid interactions. Nucleic Acids Res., 34(suppl 1):D204–D206, 2006. [23] Iain H Moal and Juan Fern´andez-Recio. Skempi: a structural kinetic and energetic database of mutant protein interactions and its use in empirical models. Bioinformatics, 28(20):2600–2607, 2012. [24] Justina Jankauskait˙e, Brian Jim´enez-Garc´ıa, Justas Dapk¯unas, Juan Fern´andez-Recio, and Iain H Moal. Skempi 2.0: an updated benchmark of changes in protein–protein binding energy, kinetics and thermodynamics upon mutation. Bioinformatics, 35(3):462–469, 2019. [25] Sarah Sirin, James R Apgar, Eric M Bennett, and Amy E Keating. Ab-bind: antibody binding mutational database for computational affinity predictions. Protein Sci., 25(2):393–409, 2016. [26] Cunliang Geng, Anna Vangone, and Alexandre MJJ Bonvin. Exploring the interplay between experimental methods and the performance of predictors of binding affinity change upon mutations in protein complexes. Protein Eng. Des. Sel., 29(8):291–299, 2016. [27] Sherlyn Jemimah, K Yugandhar, and M Michael Gromiha. Proximate: a database of mutant protein–protein complex thermodynamics and kinetics. Bioinformatics, 33(17):2787–2788, 2017. [28] Douglas EV Pires, David B Ascher, and Tom L Blundell. mcsm: predicting the effects of mutations in proteins using graph-based signatures. Bioinformatics, 30(3):335–342, 2014. [29] Cunliang Geng, Anna Vangone, Gert E Folkers, Li C Xue, and Alexandre MJJ Bonvin. isee: Interface structure, evolution, and energy-based machine learning predictor of binding affinity changes upon mutations. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 87(2):110–119, 2019. [30] Sherlyn Jemimah, Masakazu Sekijima, and M Michael Gromiha. Proaffimuseq: sequence-based method to predict the binding free energy change of protein–protein complexes upon mutation using functional classification. Bioinformatics, 36(6):1725–1730, 2020. [31] Guangyu Zhou, Muhao Chen, Chelsea JT Ju, Zheng Wang, Jyun-Yu Jiang, and Wei Wang. Mutation effect estimation on protein–protein interactions using deep contextualized representation learning. NAR genom. bioinform., 2(2):lqaa015, 2020. [32] Alexey Strokach, Tian Yu Lu, and Philip M Kim. Elaspic2 (el2): combining contextualized language models and graph neural networks to predict effects of mutations. J. Mol. Biol., 433(11):166810, 2021. [33] Xianggen Liu, Yunan Luo, Pengyong Li, Sen Song, and Jian Peng. Deep geometric representations for modeling effects of mutations on protein-protein binding affinity. PLoS Comput. Biol., 17(8):e1009284, 2021. [34] Piero Fariselli, Pier Luigi Martelli, Castrense Savojardo, and Rita Casadio. Inps: predicting the impact of nonsynonymous variations on protein stability from sequence. Bioinformatics, 31(17):2816–2821, 2015. [35] Grant Thiltgen and Richard A Goldstein. Assessing predictors of changes in protein stability upon mutation using self-consistency. PLoS One, 7(10):e46084, 2012. [36] Fabrizio Pucci, Katrien V Bernaerts, Jean Marc Kwasigroch, and Marianne Rooman. Quantification of biases in predictions of protein stability changes upon mutations. Bioinformatics, 34(21):3659–3665, 2018. [37] Dinara R Usmanova, Natalya S Bogatyreva, Joan Ari˜no Bernad, Aleksandra A Eremina, Anastasiya A Gorshkova, German M Kanevskiy, Lyubov R Lonishin, Alexander V Meister, Alisa G Yakupova, Fyodor A Kondrashov, et al. Self-consistency test reveals systematic bias in programs for prediction change of stability upon mutation. Bioinformatics, 34(21):3653–3658, 2018. [38] Duc D Nguyen, Tian Xiao, Menglun Wang, and Guo-Wei Wei. Rigidity strengthening: A mechanism for protein– ligand binding. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 57(7):1715–1721, 2017. [39] Md Masud Rana and Duc Duy Nguyen. Geometric graph learning with extended atom-types features for proteinligand binding affinity prediction. Comput. Biol. Med., 164:107250, 2023. [40] Jian Jiang, Rui Wang, and Guo-Wei Wei. Ggl-tox: geometric graph learning for toxicity prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 61(4):1691–1700, 2021. [41] Menglun Wang, Zixuan Cang, and Guo-Wei Wei. A topology-based network tree for the prediction of protein–protein binding affinity changes following mutation. Nat. Mach. Intell., 2(2):116–123, 2020. [42] Duan Chen, Zhan Chen, Changjun Chen, Weihua Geng, and Guo-Wei Wei. Mibpb: a software package for electrostatic analysis. J. Comput. Chem., 32(4):756–770, 2011. [43] Xiang Liu, Huitao Feng, Jie Wu, and Kelin Xia. Hom-complex-based machine learning (hcml) for the prediction of protein–protein binding affinity changes upon mutation. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 62(17):3961–3969, 2022. [44] Douglas EV Pires and David B Ascher. mcsm-ab: a web server for predicting antibody–antigen affinity changes upon mutation with graph-based signatures. Nucleic Acids Res., 44(W1):W469–W473, 2016. [45] Peng Xiong, Chengxin Zhang, Wei Zheng, and Yang Zhang. Bindprofx: assessing mutation-induced binding affinity change by protein interface profiles with pseudo-counts. J. Mol. Biol., 429(3):426–434, 2017. [46] Quanya Liu, Peng Chen, Bing Wang, Jun Zhang, and Jinyan Li. dbmpikt: a database of kinetic and thermodynamic mutant protein interactions. BMC bioinformatics, 19(1):1–7, 2018. [47] Bian Li, Yucheng T Yang, John A Capra, and Mark B Gerstein. Predicting changes in protein thermodynamic stability upon point mutation with deep 3d convolutional neural networks. PLoS Comp. Bio., 16(11):e1008291, 2020. [48] Lijun Quan, Qiang Lv, and Yang Zhang. Strum: structure-based prediction of protein stability changes upon single-point mutation. Bioinformatics, 32(19):2936–2946, 2016. [49] Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45:5–32, 2001. [50] Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik. Support-vector networks. Machine learning, 20:273–297, 1995. [51] Duc Duy Nguyen, Kaifu Gao, Menglun Wang, and Guo-Wei Wei. Mathdl: mathematical deep learning for d3r grand challenge 4. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 34(2):131–147, 2020. [52] Jerome H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, pages 1189–1232, 2001. This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv

Stories, News & Mentions about KELLOGG

Kellogg’s Stories on HackerNoon

Kellogg's News & Mentions