Retraction Correction Reveals Tortured Phrases in Scientific Writing Predate AI Language Models

🔍 The Revelation from a Retraction Correction

In a striking development for scientific publishing, a correction to a retraction notice has shed new light on 'tortured phrases' in academic papers. These awkward, unnatural rephrasings of standard scientific terms have long raised red flags for potential misconduct, but recent events clarify that they existed well before the advent of advanced artificial intelligence language models like ChatGPT. This story centers on a 2022 paper in the Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology, retracted amid concerns over such phrases, only for the publisher to amend its notice after expert scrutiny.

The episode underscores ongoing challenges in maintaining scientific integrity amid evolving writing aids and production pressures. For researchers, students, and higher education professionals, understanding tortured phrases is crucial for navigating publication ethics and ensuring credible work. This article delves into their definition, origins, the specific case, and broader implications, offering practical guidance for the academic community.

📝 Defining Tortured Phrases in Scientific Literature

Tortured phrases refer to bizarre, convoluted substitutions for established scientific terminology, often resulting in awkward or nonsensical expressions. Instead of using precise jargon like 'artificial intelligence,' a paper might employ 'counterfeit consciousness.' These phrases typically emerge from automated paraphrasing tools that swap words with synonyms to evade plagiarism detection software, producing unnatural prose that stands out to vigilant readers.

Consider these common transformations:

• 'Deep neural network' becomes 'profound neural organization.'
• 'Big data' turns into 'enormous information.'
• 'Signal to noise' is rendered as 'motion to clamor' or 'flag to clamor proportion.'
• 'Face recognition' morphs into 'facial acknowledgement' or 'outward appearance acknowledgement.'
• 'Graphics processing unit (GPU)' is listed as 'designs preparing unit.'

Such substitutions degrade readability and signal potential issues like reliance on low-quality rewriting services from paper mills—operations that churn out fabricated manuscripts for sale. Unlike genuine scholarly writing, which prioritizes clarity and convention, tortured phrases betray mechanical intervention, compromising the paper's legitimacy.

In higher education, where precise communication is paramount, recognizing these markers helps professors and students uphold standards. Institutions increasingly train faculty on these pitfalls, especially as career pressures push toward high publication volumes.

⏳ A Pre-AI Phenomenon: Origins in Paper Mills

Contrary to assumptions linking tortured phrases solely to modern AI, their documented history traces back to at least 2021, predating ChatGPT's public release in November 2022. Computer scientists Guillaume Cabanac, Cyril Labbé, and Alexander Magazinov first highlighted them in a July 2021 preprint on arXiv titled 'Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science.'

The researchers identified these phrases in peer-reviewed journals, particularly in computer science venues overwhelmed by suspicious submissions. Their analysis of Microprocessors and Microsystems revealed hundreds of papers with rapid editorial turnaround times—averaging just 42 days versus over 200 previously—and high concentrations of synthetic text indicators. They attributed this to paper mills using 'text spinners' like Spinbot, which algorithmically paraphrase plagiarized content by replacing words via thesauruses.

Key statistics from the study include over 3,000 papers indexed with tortured phrases by early 2022, spanning reputable outlets. This predates large language models (LLMs), confirming human-operated tools as the culprit. Paper mills exploit 'publish or perish' incentives, selling authorship slots to boost CVs for higher ed jobs or tenure bids.

For non-native English speakers, common in global academia, distinguishing legitimate stylistic variations from tortured output is vital. Tools now catalog over 8,000 such phrases, aiding detection.

🩺 The Coronary Artery Plaque Paper: A Case Study

The spotlight falls on 'Investigations on coronary artery plaque detection and subclassification using machine learning classifier,' published February 2022 in Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology (IOS Press/Sage). This study proposed machine learning for identifying plaque types in arteries, a critical area for cardiovascular diagnostics.

Cabanac flagged it on PubPeer in March 2023, citing phrases like:

These marred discussions on reducing medical costs and mortality, undermining the paper's credibility despite potentially sound methods.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

⚠️ Retraction Notice Error and Publisher Correction

The journal retracted the paper in October 2023, with Sage's notice stating: 'Tortured phrases can indicate that a large language model was used to deter plagiarism checks.' Cabanac contested this on PubPeer, explaining text spinners—not LLMs—generate them. He replicated the phrases via Spinbot but not GPT models, noting the paper's pre-ChatGPT timing.

Sage corrected the notice in January 2024: 'The original notice incorrectly cited the origin of tortured phrases to the use of a large language model.' This amendment, covered in a February 2026 Retraction Watch article, affirms tortured phrases' pre-AI roots.

Authors defended the language as pre-existing stylistic choices, but experts warn against normalization, where deviance becomes accepted.

🎯 Implications for Scientific Integrity and Publishing

This saga highlights vulnerabilities in peer review and plagiarism detection. Publishers like Elsevier and IOP retracted batches after spotting tortured phrases, yet over 30 notices required corrections for inaccuracies. In higher education, where research output fuels professor jobs and grants, such lapses erode trust.

Detection tools like the Problematic Paper Screener scan for 8,000+ fingerprints. Journals now integrate AI checks, but arms races loom as mills adapt. Nature's 2021 coverage emphasized these as foul play signals.

For academia, fostering ethical writing—via workshops on clear prose—counters mills. Explore academic CV tips to prioritize quality over quantity.

🤖 AI's Role: Evolution or Continuation?

While predating LLMs, tortured phrases may intersect with AI. Early models avoid them, producing fluent text, but training data glitches perpetuate errors like 'vegetative electron microscopy.' Future LLMs could mimic spinners if prompted evasively.

Unlike rigid spinners, AI excels at context but risks hallucinations. Distinguishing requires hybrid scrutiny: stylistic anomalies plus data checks. In research labs, combining human oversight with tools safeguards output.

🛡️ Practical Advice: Detecting and Avoiding Pitfalls

To spot tortured phrases:

• Scan for synonym chains deviating from norms (e.g., PubPeer, Google Scholar).
• Use detectors like RoBERTa-based GPT classifiers on abstracts.
• Check editorial timelines: Abrupt shortens signal issues.

Avoiding them:

• Write originally; use paraphrasers sparingly, then human-edit.
• Peer feedback emphasizes clarity.
• Declare AI assistance transparently.

Students rating professors on RateMyProfessor can flag courses teaching ethical writing. Pursue research jobs valuing integrity.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

📈 Looking Ahead: Safeguarding Academia

The retraction correction reinforces that tortured phrases signal misconduct roots in systemic pressures, not just tech. Publishers must refine screening; researchers prioritize authenticity. As AI integrates into workflows, balanced policies will preserve literature's reliability.

Stay informed via AcademicJobs.com resources. Searching for higher ed jobs? Review professor salaries and career advice. Share insights on RateMyProfessor or explore higher ed career advice for sustainable paths. University jobs await those upholding excellence.