Rigour is crucial for scientific research as it ensures the reproducibility and validity of results and findings. Despite its importance, little work exists on modelling rigour computationally, and there is a lack of analysis on whether these criteria can effectively signal or measure the rigour of scientific papers in practice. In this paper, we introduce a bottom-up, data-driven framework to automatically identify and define rigour criteria and assess their relevance in scientific writing. Our framework includes rigour keyword extraction, detailed rigour definition generation, and salient criteria identification. Furthermore, our framework is domain-agnostic and can be tailored to the evaluation of scientific rigour for different areas, accommodating the distinct salient criteria across fields. We conducted comprehensive experiments based on datasets collected from two high impact venues for Machine Learning and NLP (i.e., ICLR and ACL) to demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in modelling rigour. In addition, we analyse linguistic patterns of rigour, revealing that framing certainty is crucial for enhancing the perception of scientific rigour, while suggestion certainty and probability uncertainty diminish it.

Purpose: Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task. Design/methodology/approach: Test the extent to which ChatGPT-4 can assess the quality of journal articles using a case study of the published scoring guidelines of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 to create a research evaluation ChatGPT. This was applied to 51 of my own articles and compared against my own quality judgements. Findings: ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match the REF criteria. Its overall scores have weak correlations with my self-evaluation scores of the same documents (averaging r=0.281 over 15 iterations, with 8 being statistically significantly different from 0). In contrast, the average scores from the 15 iterations produced a statistically significant positive correlation of 0.509. Thus, averaging scores from multiple ChatGPT-4 rounds seems more effective than individual scores. The positive correlation may be due to ChatGPT being able to extract the author's significance, rigour, and originality claims from inside each paper. If my weakest articles are removed, then the correlation with average scores (r=0.200) falls below statistical significance, suggesting that ChatGPT struggles to make fine-grained evaluations. Research limitations: The data is self-evaluations of a convenience sample of articles from one academic in one field. Practical implications: Overall, ChatGPT does not yet seem to be accurate enough to be trusted for any formal or informal research quality evaluation tasks. Research evaluators, including journal editors, should therefore take steps to control its use. Originality/value: This is the first published attempt at post-publication expert review accuracy testing for ChatGPT.

All humans have bias, unconscious or otherwise – the risks and effects of which have never been more apparent than in recruitment. As such, it seems reasonable to hope that technology holds the key to achieving fairer outcomes in hiring decisions. For those committed to making the process more inclusive and organisations more diverse, the potential and ever increasing possibilities for technology as part of recruitment can appear limitless. As the use of AI in recruitment continues to hit the headlines, automation in recruitment has become more widespread, transforming who and how companies recruit. Although the appeal of AI is clear (and its use can be transformative in recruitment), it is important to reappraise exactly what technology can change for the better right now. By taking a more realistic look at the technology, we can recalibrate our expectations and understand the role we have to play in driving meaningful change.