LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary

LLM “Excess Vocabulary” and Weasel Words

• Commenters focus on the paper’s finding that words like “delves,” “potential,” “significant,” and a long list of “excess style words” have surged.
• Some see these as vague, business‑hype vocabulary that obscures meaning, echoing Orwell’s criticism of abstract, obfuscatory language.
• There is debate over “significant”: in statistics it is precise, but in generic prose it’s seen as a weasel word unless clearly defined.
• One person argues that trends for “delves” are confounded by its use in games (WoW, Magic: The Gathering, YouTube essays), suggesting not all lexical changes are due to LLMs.

Recognition of “LLM‑ese” in Practice

• Many say “delves” and patterns like “it’s not just X, it’s Y” are now strong LLM fingerprints.
• Some like the clarity and tidy structure of LLM output but find the repetitive style and buzzwords grating.
• Anecdotes describe professionals unknowingly revealing LLM use through emojis and characteristic explanation patterns.

Non‑Native Authors, Translation, and Editing

• Several note that the majority of English‑language scientific papers are written by non‑native speakers; pre‑LLM, expensive “Author Services” filled this gap.
• One side argues LLMs are “masterful translators” and a clear win for accessibility and equity, often improving clarity over human‑written drafts.
• The opposing side worries non‑native authors may miss subtle but important shifts in meaning, and advocates for human editors familiar with both language and domain.

Responsibility, Accuracy, and Misuse

• Concern that authors may over‑delegate responsibility to LLMs, blaming “the tool” when nuance or correctness is lost.
• Others counter that responsibility ultimately remains with the authors, just as with human editing or tax professionals.
• Some mention broader issues: publication pressure, fabricated results, and the reproducibility crisis, with LLMs potentially making low‑quality papers appear more credible.

Equity, Bias, and the Role of Writing in Science

• The article’s “equity in science” framing is criticized via an example of a mis‑resolved citation, interpreted as over‑reliance on automated tools.
• One view: writing skill is integral to scientific thinking; if a researcher can’t articulate findings, the science itself is suspect.
• Counterview: writing and science are distinct skills; tools that lower the writing barrier let more capable scientists contribute, especially non‑native English speakers.
• Some worry about “dumbing down” and cultural soft power of English‑centric, Western‑trained LLMs; others see this as another in a long line of technological shifts that reallocate, rather than destroy, skills.