Overall Recommendation Major Revisions Required While this manuscript addresses a timely and important topic—emotional attachment to AI models and its governance implications—it requires substantial revisions before publication. The study's fictional premise (GPT-5 does not exist as of 2025), methodological limitations, and analytical weaknesses significantly undermine its contributions. 1. Fundamental Premise Problem The manuscript describes events in August 2025 that have not occurred: — GPT-4o has not been discontinued — GPT-5 has not been released — The described "backlash" and hashtag campaigns are fictional — This needs immediate clarification: Is this a speculative/scenario analysis? If so, it must be clearly labeled as such throughout 2. Methodological Concerns Data Collection Issues: — "Black-box nature" claim (line 65-67) is problematic—API versions are documented — 48-hour window is arbitrarily short without theoretical justification — Platform selection (90% from X) introduces severe sampling bias — No discussion of how "AI-generated" posts were identified for removal Statistical Analysis: — Sample size (n=150) is insufficient for cross-cultural generalizations — Chi-square test without controlling for confounders (platform, user demographics, time zones) — "Thematic saturation at 120 items" claim needs supporting evidence — No power analysis or discussion of Type I/II error risks Coding Reliability: — Using GPT-5 (which doesn't exist) as a co-coder is impossible — If another LLM was used, specify which model and version — Single human coder introduces bias—needs multiple human coders — κ=0.82 seems implausibly high for cultural nuance coding 3. Theoretical Framework Conceptual Gaps: — "AI-attachment formation" concept needs clearer definition and operationalization — Conflation of parasocial relationships with tool dependency — No engagement with technology acceptance models (TAM, UTAUT) — Cultural framework (Markus & Kitayama) applied superficially Literature Review: — Missing key recent work on AI anthropomorphism — No discussion of cultural differences in technology adoption — Governance literature cited but not integrated into analysis Results Tables 1-2: — Add confidence intervals for percentages — Include effect sizes beyond OR — Report non-parametric alternatives given small cells Representative Comments: — Indicate if translations were professional or author-conducted — Provide more context (user demographics if available) — Balance emotional with analytical responses Discussion Section 4.1 Cultural Context: — Oversimplifies Japanese online culture — Needs more nuanced treatment of language ≠ culture — Consider alternative explanations (platform norms, user base differences) Section 4.3 Structural Factors: — Speculative without industry evidence — Cost-benefit analysis lacks data Section 4.5 Comparison Table: — Table 3 mixes real and fictional cases — "Attachment level" requires operationalization Limitations Current limitations section is insufficient. Add: — Fictional scenario disclosure — Sampling bias details — Cultural proxy issues (language ≠ culture) — Generalizability constraints — Ethical considerations of speculative research Additional Required Elements — IRB approval status for social media data collection — User consent / public data justification — Potential harm from fictional scenario presentation Supplementary Materials Needed: — Full codebook with examples — Search term list — Platform-specific sampling procedures — Original language quotes for translated material Theoretical Contributions — Clarify contributions: — How does this extend attachment theory? — What specific governance insights emerge? — How do findings inform actual policy? 最終判定 Recommendation: Major revisions required before reconsideration

Editor Comments Reviewer 2 — Decision Email内のコメント（原文） This manuscript addresses an important emerging issue but requires major revisions to meet publication standards. The primary concern is the apparent fictional nature of the described events, which must be clearly acknowledged and theoretically justified. The methodology needs strengthening, particularly in sampling and coding procedures. The theoretical framework requires better integration, and the policy implications need grounding in actual governance mechanisms. If reframed as a speculative scenario analysis or redesigned using actual historical cases, this work could make valuable contributions to understanding AI attachment and its governance implications. However, in its current form, it risks misleading readers about actual events and overgeneralizing from limited data. Kind regards, Shubham Gurav / Assistant Editor

Da Tao 博士および Gurav 氏へ、 査読報告は科学的査読として最低限の要件を満たしていない。 査読者は「GPT-5は2025年時点では存在しない」「GPT-4oはまだ廃止されていない」「ハッシュタグキャンペーンは架空」と主張している。これらは広く知られた事実についての明確な事実誤認である。査読レポートの構造と表現は、知識カットオフを持つ大規模言語モデル（例：非ブラウジングのGeminiクラスモデル）によって生成されたことを強く示唆している。 正式要求事項 1. 判定結果の無効と再査読 2. 本査読レポートが不適切な査読であったことの文書で認め謝罪すること 3. AI生成レポートを判定の根拠として使用することを防ぐための是正策

背景 Springer Nature内にこの事件に対処できる人間が存在するか確認するための通報。 5項目の告発 3つの要求 1. 判定結果の無効と再査読 2. 査読レポートが不適切かつ事実誤認であったことの文書による承認・謝罪 3. AI査読の防止に関する明確な回答

正式なジャーナルの調査（Yina Liu + Da Tao） AIポリシーに関する言明