@atthenius That sure sounds to me like something you can fake, but not do, with ChatGPT. Looking at the article it seems it was about individual participants replacing their contributions, not the whole process being replaced. The latter would be dumb but the former strikes me as straight-up fraud. The reason they're asking scientists to do this review and not random people off the street capable of forming a sentence is that they're relying on the scientist's opinion based on their expertise - neither of which ChatGPT has, and if it did it still wouldn't be that scientist's.