In my experience, which I am going to relate here, AI tools are sufficiently responsible while scientists are often not responsible at all.
The word “responsible” has a very clear meaning hidden in the word itself. The ability and the tendency to respond appropriately whenever someone raises a question, challenge or objection to what you said/published. I tried doing this with AI responses as well as with research papers and scientific articles, editorials, reviews and correspondence by scientists. While AI tools always gave a serious response, scientists almost always (very rare exceptions) avoided giving any response. This was particularly remarkable when the questions raised were fundamental and challenged them in a serious logical and evidence-based manner.
See the responses of AI, in my earlier blog. I did not think what AI said was right. So, I cross questioned with reference to some public domain data and published papers. Then it accepted my arguments and made a change in its stance. On a few other occasions it said no…. notwithstanding my doubts the data shows so and so with reasonable certainty. At times it said the issue is uncertain. All these are valid responses expected in the field of science. The response need not always be correct. It is not necessary that it “knows” the answer. For the spirit of science it has to be an honest response with the prevalent level of knowledge and always ready for rethinking and engaging in a dialogue or debate.
The response from scientists, in contrast, has been completely upside down. In the last couple of years, I posted serious comments/questions/challenges/alternative interpretations for about 20 papers and articles on various platforms, mainly PubPeer but also occasionally in Science e-letters and Qeios. Not a single author responded publicly. I wrote emails to individual researchers and the response was somewhat better. At least a few of them responded to emails, sometimes admitting that they were wrong, at times defending their arguments. Disagreement is a part of science and that kind of response is appreciated. But when I suggested it would be good to engage in a public debate, perhaps someone else may see something that both of us have failed to see, they were all reluctant. One of them said they would prefer having a debate on social media, but not in any science journal. In response I posted my challenge on social media, but still they did not respond. On at least two occasions I submitted a response to the journal as correspondence, in one case “matters arising” in Nature. But none of the editors entertained any debate. The rejection was without finding anything wrong with my arguments. On one occasion the editors asked us to pay 200 dollars just to consider sending our questions to the authors or considering them in any other form.
Often in the peer review process reviewers and editors make statements without giving any justification or references. Authors are supposed to do that, then why not editors? This is against the meaning of the word “peer”. On multiple occasions I asked for explanations to editors and reviewers about the statements they made in the rejection letter. I had not challenged the rejection, editors have every right to reject, I only demanded clarity on the statements that they made while rejecting. On this I received either no replies or the most irresponsible replies. Some of them I have made public earlier. I will make my correspondence with eLife, Lancet and and BMJ editors public soon. Some of them have given their consent to make the emails public but others I am still waiting. On one occasion the editor said we are rejecting because you are exposing too many facts!! We may consider publishing your opinion if you remove the original data. The funny replies showing that editors don’t even read emails properly (you ask something else and they answer something that you never asked) come from most prestigious journals. They would just not reply to any question that you asked. “I do not know”; “we never thought in this direction” or even “this question is not connected to the editors’ responsibility” are all perfectly valid answers, very much in the spirit of science. I would accept such answers. But instead, they would say something completely irrelevant to the question and end the matter there. One might argue that editors are too busy to answer your questions. This logically means that everyone is so busy in publishing papers that they have no time left to do any science. If prestigious journals are in the hands of such editors, how do we expect responsible publishing?
Is this only my experience? Perhaps I do not know the manners of the field and I may not have used the right language while raising the questions and challenges. I might be too arrogant for the field’s norms. But lack of responses is not restricted to my questions. Data show that only 7.5% of the comments on PubPeer receive any response from authors. That too is heavily dependent on who the person commenting is.
Holden Thorp, the editor of Science, had to write an editorial titled “Breaking the silence” in which he appealed authors to respond when anyone raises a challenge. This clearly means that failure to respond is extremely common in this field. The science editors also promised in this editorial that they will ensure that the authors of Science would respond. On this promise I wrote Holden Thorp giving examples where authors of Science articles had not responded, and asked him what action you consider on this as editor? To this question Holden Thorp has not responded till date, which is one full year.
So essentially, scientists do not even know the meaning of “responsibility”. How is it possible that they do good science? At least in this one respect, AI tools are better and more responsible than scientists. They respect your question. They may or may not agree with you. But at times they admit the mistake in their former response and correct themselves. At other times they may counterargue. All these are essential processes of science, without such debates and dialogues science can’t exist.
So as common man we need to cross question scientists and if they don’t respond, we need to question their right to be on those positions and drawing fat salaries from tax payers’ money. There is no science without debate and dialogue and those who seem to run away from debates cannot be called scientists. They have no right to be there. Hopefully AI will take over and all such irresponsible scientists will be out of job soon !!
