What does one do about AI rejections?

[s_bradshaw]

So, the prologue for my story went up no problem, but my chapter one got rejected for being AI-written.

Thing is... I didn't use any of the sort of tools it specifies. I use a spellchecker, it's hard to avoid that, everything has them built in. When I share with the writing circle, it goes on Google Docs and then I get the blue underlines, and that catches some typos (that any proof-reader watch catch).

No Grammarly, or anything similar. I use Gemini to get started on some research, sometimes. That's the extent of my AI usage.

The only thing I can think of is that whatever tool (or human checking) is being used has bought into the "em dashes mean AI" thing, because I use them in the style I grew up reading. Problem is, the prologue used them as well, at approximately the same density (slightly more, in fact).

And the message rejecting it says, taking it literally, not to resubmit it after changes. Though I think that may be poorly written in the standard message, because it mostly seems to be referring to volunteer editors.

But without any indication of what caused it to be rejected as AI, it's difficult to deal with it.

Any advice?

 

[Bamagan]

So, the prologue for my story went up no problem, but my chapter one got rejected for being AI-written.

Thing is... I didn't use any of the sort of tools it specifies. I use a spellchecker, it's hard to avoid that, everything has them built in. When I share with the writing circle, it goes on Google Docs and then I get the blue underlines, and that catches some typos (that any proof-reader watch catch).

No Grammarly, or anything similar. I use Gemini to get started on some research, sometimes. That's the extent of my AI usage.

The only thing I can think of is that whatever tool (or human checking) is being used has bought into the "em dashes mean AI" thing, because I use them in the style I grew up reading. Problem is, the prologue used them as well, at approximately the same density (slightly more, in fact).

And the message rejecting it says, taking it literally, not to resubmit it after changes. Though I think that may be poorly written in the standard message, because it mostly seems to be referring to volunteer editors.

But without any indication of what caused it to be rejected as AI, it's difficult to deal with it.

Any advice?

There are about fifty threads on this topic, with a variety of advice, most of which is speculative since we're all in the same boat regarding submissions. Succinctly, if you have not used AI, the only thing to do is resubmit and politely ask the editor (via the 'notes to the editor') to look at it again. You can more or less repeat what you said in this post as an appeal. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
The only possible wrinkle here is that you may have gotten a different or possibly updated rejection notice, if in fact it suggested that you not resubmit. I'd be curious to see the exact wording, if you don't mind copying and pasting it.
Good luck!

 

[s_bradshaw]

There are about fifty threads on this topic, with a variety of advice, most of which is speculative since we're all in the same boat regarding submissions. Succinctly, if you have not used AI, the only thing to do is resubmit and politely ask the editor (via the 'notes to the editor') to look at it again. You can more or less repeat what you said in this post as an appeal. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
The only possible wrinkle here is that you may have gotten a different or possibly updated rejection notice, if in fact it suggested that you not resubmit. I'd be curious to see the exact wording, if you don't mind copying and pasting it.
Good luck!

It is a case of taking it literally... the context suggests they may only be referring to the "ask a volunteer editor to look at it" part, but literally, it says the bit saying resubmit after making revisions doesn't apply.

NOTE: the sentence at the end of this response [[Please feel free to re-submit the story after a Volunteer Editor has examined it, or after you've made revisions.]] does not apply to stories rejected for content or AI issues. Volunteer Editors can help only with grammar, punctuation, and story mechanics issues.

 

[alsith]

As someone who watched this story being developed in real-time, feed-backed, and re-developed, I can testify that as far as I've seen ZERO AI has been used.

 

[Bamagan]

It is a case of taking it literally... the context suggests they may only be referring to the "ask a volunteer editor to look at it" part, but literally, it says the bit saying resubmit after making revisions doesn't apply.

I think they're simply clarifying that the Volunteer Editors won't be able to point to passages and identify them as triggering an AI detector, so you probably needn't bother going that route, unless you have other issues you'd like an editor to address. You can certainly resubmit, with or without edits.

 

[DisquietCertitude]

I use emdashes all the time — probably even in places they're not grammatically "correct", because I take the Pirate Code approach to a lot of the "so-called Rules of Grammar".

If Lit is flagging stories using questionable rubrics, that's idiotic.

And makes me question just what value I want to add here.

Dis

 

[DisquietCertitude]

And, like alsith said above, being one of the other authorised spinoff writers in the QT setting, I've seen the drafts and edits and revisions to the chapters that S.Bradshaw has been working on.

Laurel, Manu, I suggest you take a good look at whatever method you're using to flag stories as AI-generated, and maybe implement some secondary screening. Because, based on the development work I've seen on this chapter, whatever you're using is wrong.

Dis

 

[OtterlyMindblowing]

Also chiming in, as I am a member of the Quaranteam Writers Room as well and saw this being written.

 

[s_bradshaw]

I think they're simply clarifying that the Volunteer Editors won't be able to point to passages and identify them as triggering an AI detector, so you probably needn't bother going that route, unless you have other issues you'd like an editor to address. You can certainly resubmit, with or without edits.

So slightly poor drafting . That's cool, then.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

And, like alsith said above, being one of the other authorised spinoff writers in the QT setting, I've seen the drafts and edits and revisions to the chapters that S.Bradshaw has been working on.

Laurel, Manu, I suggest you take a good look at whatever method you're using to flag stories as AI-generated, and maybe implement some secondary screening. Because, based on the development work I've seen on this chapter, whatever you're using is wrong.

Dis

I'm just replying to @mention @Laurel, the only person who can actually do anything about this. Maybe it'll get her attention. (I know you're busy, but this seems to be an ongoing, common problem.)

--Annie

 

[s_bradshaw]

Well, I don't know what's going on, but in the process of resubmitting (I was fixing some formatting while I did so, and iterating through some versions), when I finally hit to put in in for publishing, it said it couldn't.

Then I saw it was back in pending, but the label changed to 'published', and when I click on it it says status is 'scheduled'.

So either it got sorted very quickly, or something's gone squiffy.

(PS: and the formatting changes I made are present in the version showing as pending/scheduled)

 

[ElectricBlue]

Then I saw it was back in pending, but the label changed to 'published', and when I click on it it says status is 'scheduled'.

That means it's about to go live.

One thing a new writer must learn about Lit is patience, that their story isn't unique or special, that there isn't some huge conspiracy against them.

There's one reviewer, a very long conveyor belt, and all of our stories are on it. Some go through faster than others, and there's dozens of reasons why that might be the case.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The only thing I can think of is that whatever tool (or human checking) is being used has bought into the "em dashes mean AI" thing, because I use them in the style I grew up reading. Problem is, the prologue used them as well, at approximately the same density (slightly more, in fact).

And the message rejecting it says, taking it literally, not to resubmit it after changes. Though I think that may be poorly written in the standard message, because it mostly seems to be referring to volunteer editors.

But without any indication of what caused it to be rejected as AI, it's difficult to deal with it.

"AI detectors" are based on the same technology as the large language models they're trying to detect, and one of the limitations of that tech is that it sucks at providing a human-interpretable, factual explanation for why it behaves the way it does. (You can ask GPT "why did you say that?" and it will give you an answer that looks like an explanation, but the question it's really answering there is "what might a human say when asked to explain a decision like this?" It has no insight into its own "thought process" that would allow it to give you a factual explanation for its choices.)

We can speculate about things like em-dashes, blah blah blah, but hard evidence on exactly what does and doesn't set off the detectors is hard to come by.

 

[s_bradshaw]

That means it's about to go live.

One thing a new writer must learn about Lit is patience, that their story isn't unique or special, that there isn't some huge conspiracy against them.

There's one reviewer, a very long conveyor belt, and all of our stories are on it. Some go through faster than others, and there's dozens of reasons why that might be the case.

Yeah, no, I get all that. It was the flipping status while I was in the process of editing it that was my confusion.

 

[XtremeX22]

That sounds really frustrating. AI rejections can feel pretty unfair, especially when you’re just using normal tools like spellcheckers or doing research. Sometimes these filters flag stuff based on odd things - like your mention of em dashes - that really shouldn’t be a big deal.

What might help is checking out resources on sites like https://toolsforcreators.org/stan-store-review-features-setup-ease-pricing-breakdown/ , where they have cool guides and tools to help you polish your writing while keeping it natural and human. Also, their Stan Store is great if you’re looking for an easy way to organize and sell your content smoothly. Maybe try reaching out to the platform’s support to clarify or appeal? Sometimes a quick chat clears things up.

 

[TheLobster]

It is a case of taking it literally... the context suggests they may only be referring to the "ask a volunteer editor to look at it" part, but literally, it says the bit saying resubmit after making revisions doesn't apply.

It makes perfect sense. A story that’s been spat out by an LLM will always remain so, no matter how many editors have a go at it.

And conversely, you should not try to cheat the system by resubmitting it and hoping it goes through this time.