this post was submitted on 23 May 2024

999 points (99.0% liked)

Science Memes

10905 readers

1897 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

999

Name & shame. :) (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 186 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Dude. Couldn't even proofread the easy way out they took

[–] Carrolade 104 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This almost makes me think they're trying to fully automate their publishing process. So, no editor in that case.

Editors are expensive.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If they really want to do it, they can just run a local language model trained to proofread stuff like this. Would be way better

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (10 children)

This is exactly the line of thinking that lead to papers like this being generated.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] TheFarm 27 points 5 months ago (4 children)

This is what baffles me about these papers. Assuming the authors are actually real people, these AI-generated mistakes in publications should be pretty easy to catch and edit.

It does make you wonder how many people are successfully putting AI-generated garbage out there if they're careful enough to remove obviously AI-generated sentences.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] clearedtoland 154 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Hold up. That actually got through to publishing??

[–] RedditWanderer 110 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's because nobody was there to highlight the text for them.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The entire abstract is AI. Even without the explicit mention in one sentence, the rest of the text should've been rejected as nonspecific nonsense.

[–] canihasaccount 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's not actually the abstract; it's a piece from the discussion that someone pasted nicely with the first page in order to name and shame the authors. I looked at it in depth when I saw this circulate a little while ago.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 42 points 5 months ago

It's Elsevier, so this probably isn't even the lowest quality article they've published

[–] Ragdoll_X 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

yea lol

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043324004096

I've recently been watching a lot of videos on prominent cases of fraud and malpractice like Francesca Gino, Claudine Gay, Hwang Woo-suk, etc., which prompted me to start reading more into meta-research as well, and now I'm basically paranoid about every paper I read. There's so much shady shit going on...

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Many journals are absolute garbage that will accept anything. Keep that in mind the next time someone links a study to prove a point. You have to actually read the thing and judge the methodology to know if their conclusions have any merits.

[–] clearedtoland 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 9 points 5 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] dustyData 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 139 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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 …

[–] [email protected] 81 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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'"

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I am still baffled by the rat dick illustration that got past the review

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

RAT DICK,

WHATCHA GONNA DO,

WHATCHAGONNADO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

I mean holy shit you’re right, the lack of patient consent is a much bigger issue than getting lazy writing the discussion.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 123 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

To me, this is a major ethical issue. If any actual humans submitted this “paper”, they should be severely disciplined by their ethics board.

[–] [email protected] 91 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But the publisher who published it should be liable too. Wtf is their job then? Parasiting off of public funded research?

[–] plantedworld 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Bitfucker knew that was rhetorical.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] repungnant_canary 99 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Maybe, if reviewers were paid for their job they could actually focus on reading the paper and those things wouldn't slide. But then Elsevier shareholders could only buy one yacht a year instead of two and that would be a nightmare...

[–] adenoid 37 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Elsevier pays its reviewers very well! In fact, in exchange for my last review, I received a free month of ScienceDirect and Scopus...

... Which my institution already pays for. Honestly it's almost more insulting than getting nothing.

I try to provide thorough reviews for about twice as many articles as I publish in an effort to sort of repay the scientific community for taking the time to review my own articles, but in academia reviewing is rewarded far less than publishing. Paid reviews sound good but I'd be concerned that some would abuse this system for easy cash and review quality would decrease (not that it helped in this case). If full open access publishing is not available across the board (it should be), I would love it if I could earn open access credits for my publications in exchange for providing reviews.

[–] Ragdoll_X 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 67 points 5 months ago

It's OK, nobody will be able to read it anyway because it's on Elsevier.

[–] Nobody 63 points 5 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 63 points 5 months ago

Elsevier is such a fucking joke. Science should be free and open, anyways.

[–] breadsmasher 44 points 5 months ago

the entire paragraph after the highlight is still AI too

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Google Retraction Watch. Academia has good people already doing this.

https://www.crossref.org/blog/news-crossref-and-retraction-watch/

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What's the business model? (How does that generate revenue?)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] soloner 40 points 5 months 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

[–] weariedfae 38 points 5 months ago

[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 27 points 5 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

what if this was actually just a huge troll, and it wasn't AI.

Now that would be fucking hilarious.

[–] Linkerbaan 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)