• Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        2 years ago

        Yep. And AI will totally help.

        Ooh I mean not help. It’ll make it much worse. Particularly with the social sciences. Which were already pretty fuX0r3d anyway due to the whole “your emotions equal this number” thing.

      • clearedtoland@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        2 years ago

        Full disclosure: I don’t intend to be condescending.

        Research Methods during my graduate studies forever changed the way I interpret just about any claim, fact, or statement. I’m obnoxiously skeptical and probably cynical, to be honest. It annoys the hell out of my wife but it beats buying into sensationalist headlines and miracle research. Then you get into the real world and see how data gets massaged and thrown around haphazardly…believe very little of what you see.

        • Adalast@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 years ago

          I have this problem too. My wife gets so annoyed at things because I question things I notice as biases or statistical irregularities instead of just accepting that they knee what they were doing. I have tried to explain it to her. Skepticism is not dismissal and it is not saying I am smarter than them, it is recognizing that they are human and that I may be more proficient in one spot they made a mistake than they were.

          I will acknowledge that the lay need to stop trying to argue with scientists because “they did their own research”, but the actually informed and educated need to do a better job of calling each other out.

    • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      2 years ago

      We are in top dystopia mode right now. Students have AI write articles that are proofread and edited by AI, submitted to automated systems that are AI vetted for publishing, then posted to platforms where no one ever reads the articles posted but AI is used to scrape them to find answers or train all the other AIs.

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 years ago

        How generative AI is clouding the future of Google search

        The search giant doesn’t just face new competition from ChatGPT and other upstarts. It also has to keep AI-powered SEO from damaging its results.

        More or less the same phenomenon of signal pollution:

        “Google is shifting its responsibility for maintaining the quality of results to moderators on Reddit, which is dangerous,” says Ray of Amsive. Search for “kidney stone pain” and you’ll see Quora and Reddit ranking in the top three positions alongside sites like the Mayo Clinic and the National Kidney Foundation. Quora and Reddit use community moderators to manually remove link spam. But with Reddit’s traffic growing exponentially, is a human line of defense sustainable against a generative AI bot army?

        We’ll end up using year 2022 as a threshold for reference criteria. Maybe not entirely blocked, but like a ratio… you must have 90% pre-2022 and 10% post-2022.

        Perhaps this will spur some culture shift to publish all the data, all the notes, everything - which will be great to train more AI on. Or we’ll get to some type of anti-AI or anti-crawler medium.

  • shadowtofu@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    117·
    2 years ago

    This article has been removed at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the authors because informed patient consent was not obtained by the authors in accordance with journal policy prior to publication. The authors sincerely apologize for this oversight.

    In addition, the authors have used a generative AI source in the writing process of the paper without disclosure, which, although not being the reason for the article removal, is a breach of journal policy. The journal regrets that this issue was not detected during the manuscript screening and evaluation process and apologies are offered to readers of the journal.

    The journal regrets – Sure, the journal. Nobody assuming responsibility …

    • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.caEnglish
      68·
      2 years ago

      What, nobody read it before it was published? Whenever I’ve tried to publish anything it gets picked over with a fine toothed comb. But somehow they missed an entire paragraph of the AI equivalent of that joke from parks and rec: “I googled your symptoms and it looks like you have ‘network connectivity issues’”

    • Patrizsche@lemmy.caEnglish
      25·
      2 years ago

      Daaaaamn they didn’t even get consent from the patient😱😱😱 that’s even worse

      • Ragdoll X@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
        13·
        2 years ago

        I’ve always wondered if some sort of decentralized, community-led system would be better than the current peer review process.

        That is, someone can submit their paper and it’s publicly available for all to read, then people with expertise in fields relevant to that paper could review and rate its quality.

        Now that I think about it it’s conceptually similar to Twitter’s community notes, where anyone with enough reputation can write a note and if others rate it as helpful it’s shown to everyone. Though unlike Twitter there would obviously need to be some kind of vetting process so that it’s not just random people submitting and rating papers.

          • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPMEnglish
            8·
            2 years ago

            I feel like I’ve seen this model before, I know I’ve heard it. There’s better ways to do it than your suggestion, but it’s there in spirit. Science is a conversation, it would be a really cool idea to make room for things like this. In the meantime, check out Pubpeer, it’s got extensions for browsers. Super useful and you have to attach your ORCID to be verified. Everyone can read it though.

      • bananabenana@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 years ago

        Open access credits is a fantastic idea. Unfortunately it goes against the business model of these parasites. Ultimately, these businesses provide little to no actual value except siphoning taxpayer money. I really prefer eLifes current model but it would be great if it was cheaper. arXiv, Biorxiv provides a better service than most journals IMO

        Also I agree with the reviewing seriously and twice as often as publishing. Many people leave academia so reviewing more can cover them.

  • Nobody@lemmy.worldEnglish
    53·
    2 years ago

    In Elsevier’s defense, reading is hard and they have so much money to count.

  • Lissa@beehaw.orgEnglish
    53·
    2 years ago

    It is astounding to me that this happened. A complete failure of peer review, of the editors, and OF COURSE of the authors. Just absolutely bonkers that this made it to publication. Completely clown shoes.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.socialEnglish
      36·
      2 years ago

      It keeps happening across all fields. I think we are about to witness a complete overhaul of the publishing model.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.mlEnglish
        20·
        2 years ago

        I’ve been saying it to everyone who’ll listen …

        the journals should be run by universities as non-profits with close ties to the local research community (ie, editors from local faculty and as much of the staff from the student/PhD/Postdoc body as possible). It’s really an obvious idea. In legal research, there’s a long tradition of having students run journals (Barrack Obama, if you recall, was editor of the Harvard Law Journal … that was as a student). I personally did it too … it’s a great experience for a student to see how the sausage is made.

  • blackstampede@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    36·
    2 years ago

    I started a business with a friend to automatically identify things like this, fraud like what happened with Alzheimer’s research, and mistakes like missing citations. If anyone is interested, has contacts or expertise in relevant domains or just wants to talk about it, hit me up.

  • soloner@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    2 years ago

    Guys it’s simple they just need to automate AI to read these papers for them to catch if AI language was used. They can automate the entire peer review process /s

  • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    28·
    2 years ago

    They mistakenly sent the “final final paper.docx” file instead of the “final final final paper v3.docx”. It could’ve happen to any of us.

  • burritosdontexist2@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    2 years ago

    I would insert specific language into every single one of my submissions to see if my editors were doing their jobs. Only about 1/3 caught it. Short story long, I’m not just a researcher in a narrow field, I’m also an amateur marine biologist.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
    12·
    2 years ago

    Raneem Bader, Ashraf Imam, Mohammad Alnees, Neta Adler, Joanthan ilia, Diaa Zugayar, Arbell Dan, Abed Khalaileh. You are all accused of using chatgpt or whatever else to write your paper. How do you plead?

    • Rolando@lemmy.worldEnglish
      24·
      2 years ago

      How do you plead?

      “I apologize, but I do not feel comfortable performing any pleas or participating in negative experiences. As an AI language model, I aim to help with document production. Perhaps you would like me to generate another article?”

      • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
        4·
        2 years ago

        Depends on what kind of translation we’re talking here. Translating some chatter? Translating a web page (most of these suck)? Translating a book for it to be published? Translating a book so you can read it yourself? Translating a scientific paper so you can publish it, without proofreading the translation?

        • burritosdontexist2@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          Is it the personal vs. private vs. public use that is bothersome or is it just the fact that these fuckers didn’t proofread I guess is what I’m trying to figure out

          • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
            2·
            2 years ago

            They didn’t proofread, plus there’s a real chance that some other parts of the paper might be AI nonsense. If something so glaringly problematic got past, what smaller mistakes are also there? They effectively poisoned their own paper