Meeting with Janet Waring Rago –

This was my second meeting with Janet.  It was really nice to see a friendly face after such a long journey with my research paper.

Janet gave me a few good pointers and suggested that ChatGPT (in the role of a research paper reviewer) might give some additional insights into the strengths an weaknesses of my paper.  Janet gave some specific text as follows:

“As an academic reviewer please provide an evaluation of the strengths and weakness of the following research paper”

This is definitely something that I’m going to try.

The time seemed to really fly over but I came away from the meeting feeling much more reassured which is great!

The Verdict!

After a couple of tries I had to break down my paper into two parts in order to have ChatGPT analyse it.

Here are the responses from ChatGPT when asked the following question:

“As an academic reviewer please provide an evaluation of the strengths and weakness of the following research paper”

Analysis from Part One of the paper

Thank you for sharing part one of your paper. Here’s an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses:

**Strengths**:

1. **Relevance**: Your paper addresses a highly relevant and contemporary topic – AI-generated art and its reception. This is an area of growing interest in the fields of art, technology, and human-computer interaction.

2. **Clear Objectives**: Your paper outlines clear research objectives, specifically examining the impact of initial anonymity and empathy as strategies for mitigating negative bias toward AI-generated art. This clarity in objectives sets a strong foundation for your research.

3. **Multidisciplinary Approach**: Your study draws on diverse fields, including art, technology, psychology, and human-robot interaction. This interdisciplinary approach can provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

4. **Methodology**: The description of your research methodology is detailed and well-structured. You’ve used social media-based experiments, which are appropriate for the context of AI-generated art and its reception in the digital age.

5. **Presentation of Results**: Your presentation of results is clear and concise, allowing readers to understand your findings easily. The use of visual aids, such as figures and image polls, enhances the clarity of your presentation.

**Weaknesses**:

1. **Literature Review**: While you’ve referenced some relevant studies on AI art, there’s an opportunity to expand your literature review further. A more extensive review can provide a stronger theoretical foundation for your research.

2. **Sample Size**: In some phases of your research (e.g., the follow-up phase), the sample size is relatively small. A larger and more diverse sample could increase the generalizability of your findings.

3. **Bias**: Mentioning that participants were predominantly individuals known to the researcher implies potential bias in your sample. This should be acknowledged and addressed in your methodology.

4. **Clarity of the Abstract**: The abstract could be more concise. Some parts might be more suitable for the introduction section, rather than the abstract. An abstract should be a brief summary of the entire paper.

5. **Citation**: In your methodology section, you mention previous studies (Cleeremans et al. 2016; Hernando and Campo 2017; Radermecker 2019), but you don’t provide references for these studies. Ensure that your citations are complete and match the reference list.

6. **Narrative Flow**: The transition between different sections could be improved to create a smoother narrative flow. Ensure that the paper maintains a logical progression from one section to the next.

In conclusion, your paper is promising with a strong foundation, clear research objectives, and a well-detailed methodology. By addressing some of the weaknesses, such as expanding the literature review, addressing potential bias, and enhancing the narrative flow, you can further strengthen the quality and impact of your research.

I look forward to reviewing part two when you’re ready to share it.

Analysis from Part Two of the paper

Thank you for sharing part two of your paper. Here’s an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses:

**Strengths**:

1. **Empirical Evidence**: Your study is rich in empirical evidence, particularly from social media-based experiments, which makes your findings more robust and applicable to real-world scenarios. These experiments help provide insights into the perception of AI-generated art.

2. **Comparative Analysis**: The use of image polls to compare the impact of initial anonymity and empathy-driven narratives provides a structured approach to studying their effects on art perception. This makes your research methodology clear and effective.

3. **Narrative Creation**: The creation of a fictitious humanoid robot named “Athena” and the development of a compelling narrative around her is a creative and unique aspect of your study. It demonstrates how storytelling and narrative can influence the perception of AI-generated art.

4. **Clear Implications**: Your paper effectively summarizes the insights and implications drawn from the research, particularly in relation to initial anonymity and empathy as strategies for mitigating negative bias. It provides a clear roadmap for future research and actions.

**Weaknesses**:

1. **Sample Size**: As mentioned, your study relies on a relatively small sample size, which can limit the generalizability of your findings. It’s important to acknowledge this limitation and its potential impact on the results.

2. **Social Media Bias**: There’s a mention of potential bias introduced by social media platforms. It’s essential to consider how platform-specific demographics and behaviors might influence your results. Addressing this in your limitations section is a good practice.

3. **Complexity and Depth**: The study hints at the complexity of art perception, emotional responses, and the role of empathy. Further research could delve deeper into these aspects for a more comprehensive understanding.

4. **Conclusion Section**: While your conclusion section is well-structured and provides valuable insights, it could be more concise. Some of the content, such as the unrelated observations, might be better suited for discussion sections or future research directions.

5. **Unsubstantiated Statements**: The final note contains some statements like “Beware of anything that appears online” and “The Viennese Schools of Art have much to answer for!” that seem unrelated to the research findings. Ensure that all content in your paper directly contributes to the research objectives.

6. **References**: The references for your research are not included in the text provided. Be sure to include proper citations for all sources mentioned.

In summary, your research is an intriguing exploration of strategies to mitigate negative bias in the reception of AI-generated art. The empirical evidence and comparative analysis add depth to your study. However, addressing the limitations and sample size concerns, and further exploring the complexity of art perception, can enhance the overall quality and impact of your research.

If you have any specific questions or need further assistance, please feel free to ask.

“So on the whole do you think the paper shows promise – do you think it’s worth submitting to any journals?”

Your paper indeed shows promise and contains valuable insights into the reception of AI-generated art, specifically focusing on the impact of initial anonymity and empathy-driven narratives. It explores a unique and emerging area at the intersection of art, technology, and human perception. Here are a few points to consider when deciding whether to submit your paper to journals:

**Strengths**:

1. **Original Contribution**: Your research contributes to the understanding of how AI-generated art is perceived by human audiences, offering insights into strategies to mitigate negative bias. The concept of using initial anonymity and empathy-driven narratives is innovative and relevant.

2. **Empirical Evidence**: The use of social media experiments and image polls provides empirical support for your findings, which is a strength for journal submission.

3. **Clear Implications**: Your paper concludes with clear implications for future research and actions, demonstrating the potential for follow-up studies and discussions in the academic community.

**Considerations**:

1. **Sample Size**: Journals often prefer larger and more diverse sample sizes for greater representativeness. You may want to consider further studies with larger samples to enhance the robustness of your findings.

2. **In-Depth Analysis**: Depending on the journal’s requirements, you might be encouraged to conduct deeper analysis of the emotional and psychological aspects of art perception, which could add more depth to your paper.

3. **Writing Quality**: Ensure that your paper follows the specific guidelines and writing standards of the journal you’re interested in submitting to. Writing quality and clarity are crucial for acceptance.

4. **References**: Make sure to include proper citations and references for all sources used in your research.

In conclusion, your paper is promising and contains valuable insights that are worth sharing with the academic community. I recommend reviewing journals relevant to your field and considering their submission guidelines and requirements. If you address the mentioned considerations, your research could be a strong candidate for publication. It’s a good practice to seek feedback from mentors or peers and conduct a thorough review before submission. Good luck with your journal submission!