"Beginning October 1, 2023, foreign subaward recipients will be required to provide the U.S. prime grantee “copies of all lab notebooks, all data and all documentation that support the research outcomes…no less than every six months, or more frequently based on risks”"
US’ #NIH Australia’s #ARC : 'NO’ to ChatGPT for peer-review
US' #NSF and Europe's #ERC mulling it over with working groups.
Concerns:
*Privacy/Piracy “the information becomes part of its training data. ” (why I don’t chatGPT though I really hate writing)
*Error ”AI-written reviews will be error-prone"
*Bias ”against non-mainstream views”
*Boring "lack … creativity “
Most proposals go through ‘panel review’ where ALL the proposals submitted to a call are reviewed by ~30 of their peers. Usually, there is one primary & 2-3 tertiary reviewers who evaluate the proposal before the panel review. During the review, each primary reviewer presents opinions on study feasibility, proposers qualifications, potential significance. Then the tertiary reviewers chime in.
At the end the whole panel grades each proposal & only the ‘best’ (<10%) get funded.
@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.